Secretary of Justice v.

Judge Lantion 343 SCRA 377 (2000)

The respondent filed for petition of mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition.
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. LANTION [322 SCRA 160 (2000)] The RTC of NCR ruled in favor of the respondent. Secretary of Justice was
made to issue a copy of the requested papers, as well as conducting further
Nature: Petition for review of a decision of the Manila RTC proceedings.

Facts: On June 18, 1999 the Department of Justice received from the Issues:
Department of Foreign Affairs a request for the extradition of private 1. WON private is respondent entitled to the two basic due process rights of
respondent Mark Jimenez to the U.S. The Grand Jury Indictment, the warrant notice and hearing
for his arrest, and other supporting documents for said extradition were Yes. §2(a) of PD 1086 defines extradition as “the removal of an accused
attached along with the request. Charges include: from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign
1. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the US authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in
2. Attempt to evade or defeat tax connection with any criminal investigation directed against him in
3. Fraud by wire, radio, or television connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the
4. False statement or entries execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the
5. Election contribution in name of another requesting state or government.” Although the inquisitorial power exercised
by the DOJ as an administrative agency due to the failure of the DFA to
The Department of Justice (DOJ), through a designated panel proceeded with comply lacks any judicial discretion, it primarily sets the wheels for the
the technical evaluation and assessment of the extradition treaty which they extradition process which may ultimately result in the deprivation of the
found having matters needed to be addressed. Respondent, then requested for liberty of the prospective extradite. This deprivation can be effected at two
copies of all the documents included in the extradition request and for him to stages: The provisional arrest of the prospective extradite pending the
be given ample time to assess it. submission of the request & the temporary arrest of the prospective extradite
during the pendency of the extradition petition in court. Clearly, there’s an
The Secretary of Justice denied request on the ff. grounds: impending threat to a prospective extraditee’s liberty as early as during the
1. He found it premature to secure him copies prior to the completion of the evaluation stage. Because of such consequences, the evaluation process is
evaluation. At that point in time, the DOJ is in the process of evaluating akin to an administrative agency conducting an investigative proceeding, the
whether the procedures and requirements under the relevant law (PD 1069— consequences of which are essentially criminal since such technical
Philippine Extradition Law) and treaty (RP-US Extradition Treaty) have assessment sets off or commences the procedure for & ultimately the
been complied with by the Requesting Government. Evaluation by the DOJ deprivation of liberty of a prospective extradite. In essence, therefore, the
of the documents is not a preliminary investigation like in criminal cases evaluation process partakes of the nature of a criminal investigation. There
making the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the accused in criminal are certain constitutional rights that are ordinarily available only in criminal
prosecution inapplicable. prosecution. But the Court has ruled in other cases that where the
2. The U.S. requested for the prevention of unauthorized disclosure of the investigation of an administrative proceeding may result in forfeiture of life,
information in the documents. liberty, or property, the administrative proceedings are deemed criminal or
3. Finally, country is bound to Vienna convention on law of treaties such that penal, & such forfeiture partakes the nature of a penalty. In the case at bar,
every treaty in force is binding upon the parties. similar to a preliminary investigation, the evaluation stage of the extradition
proceedings which may result in the filing of an information against the common due process protection to their respective citizens. The
respondent, can possibly lead to his arrest, & to the deprivation of his liberty. administrative investigation doesn’t fall under the three exceptions to the due
Thus, the extraditee must be accorded due process rights of notice & hearing process of notice and hearing in the Sec. 3 Rules 112 of the Rules of Court.
according to A3 §14(1) & (2), as well as A3 §7—the right of the people to
information on matters of public concern & the corollary right to access to 3. WON there’s any conflict between private respondent’s basic due process
official records & documents rights & provisions of RP-US Extradition treaty
No. Doctrine of incorporation under international law, as applied in most
The court held that the evaluation process partakes of the nature of a criminal countries, decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing
investigation, having consequences which will result in deprivation of liberty with, but are not superior to national legislative acts. Treaty can repeal
of the prospective extradite. A favorable action in an extradition request statute and statute can repeal treaty. No conflict. Veil of secrecy is lifted
exposes a person to eventual extradition to a foreign country, thus exhibiting during trial. Request should impose veil at any stage.
the penal aspect of the process. The evaluation process itself is like a
preliminary investigation since both procedures may have the same result – Judgment: Petition dismissed for lack of merit.
the arrest and imprisonment of the respondent.
Kapunan, separate concurring opinion: While the evaluation process
The basic rights of notice & hearing are applicable in criminal, civil & conducted by the DOJ is not exactly a preliminary investigation of criminal
administrative proceedings. Non-observance of these rights will invalidate cases, it is akin to a preliminary investigation because it involves the basic
the proceedings. Individuals are entitled to be notified of any pending case constitutional rights of the person sought to be extradited. A person ordered
affecting their interests, & upon notice, may claim the right to appear therein extradited is arrested, forcibly taken from his house, separated from his
& present their side. family and delivered to a foreign state. His rights of abode, to privacy, liberty
and pursuit of happiness are taken away from him—a fate as harsh and cruel
Rights to notice and hearing: Dispensable in 3 cases: as a conviction of a criminal offense. For this reason, he is entitled to have
a. When there is an urgent need for immediate action (preventive suspension access to the evidence against him and the right to controvert them.
in administrative charges, padlocking filthy restaurants, cancellation of
passport). Puno, dissenting: Case at bar does not involve guilt or innocence of an
b. Where there is tentativeness of administrative action, & the respondent accused but the interpretation of an extradition treaty where at stake is our
isn’t prevented from enjoying the right to notice & hearing at a later time government’s international obligation to surrender to a foreign state a citizen
(summary distraint & levy of the property of a delinquent taxpayer, of its own so he can be tried for an alleged offense committed within that
replacement of an appointee) jurisdiction.
c. Twin rights have been offered, but the right to exercise them had not been
claimed. Panganiban, dissenting: Instant petition refers only to the evaluation stage.

2. WON this entitlement constitutes a breach of the legal commitments and

obligation of the Philippine Government under the RP-US Treaty?
No. The U.S. and the Philippines share mutual concern about the suppression
and punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions. Both states accord
Extradition vis-a-vis constitutional rights of individuals
A) Due Process Rights of Notice and Hearing
The seminal case of Secretary of Justice v. Lantion[1] was the first case
decided by the Philippine Supreme Court dealing with extradition. This case
was bound to be controversial for it involves due process rights of notice and
hearing guaranteed by the constitution. The main issue to be resolved in this
case was whether or not the private respondent is entitled to notice and
hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. The Secretary
of Justice for its part argued that such demand for notice and hearing was
premature because the Philippine government was still evaluating the
American request and no complaint for extradition has yet been filed against
the prospective extraditee. The Supreme Court speaking through Justice AR
Melo ruled in favor of private respondent. The court in sustaining the two
basic due process rights of private respondent, considered the evaluation
process akin to an administrative agency conducting an investigative
proceeding the consequences of which, according to the court, are essentially
criminal. As such jurisprudence dictates that the basic rights of notice and
hearing pervade not only in criminal and civil proceedings, but in
administrative proceedings as well. Hence, private respondent is entitled to
these indispensable basic rights during the evaluation stage of extradition
proceedings. However, upon motion for reconsideration the court reversed
its previous decision. This time, the court speaking through Mr. Justice
Reynato Puno held that extradition is a sui generis proceeding. [2]According
to the court, the determination as to whether an individual should be
extradited is not a criminal proceeding where a suspect is entitled to all the
constitutional rights of an accused. The process of extradition does not
involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused. His guilt
or innocence will be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be
extradited. Then the court proceeded to say, that as a rule, constitutional
rights that are only relevant to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused
cannot be invoked by an extraditee, especially by one whose extradition
papers are still undergoing evaluation. To further support its theory the court
cited the differences between an extradition proceeding and a criminal
proceeding. An extradition proceeding is summary in nature while criminal
proceeding involve a full-blown trial. In contradistinction to a criminal
proceeding, the rules of evidence in an extradition proceeding allow
admission of evidence under less stringent standards. In terms of the
quantum of evidence to be satisfied, a criminal case requires proof beyond
reasonable doubt for conviction while a fugitive may be ordered extradited
upon showing of the existence of prima facie case. Finally, unlike in a
criminal case where judgment becomes executory upon being rendered final,
in an extradition proceeding our courts may adjudge an individual
extraditable but the president has the final discretion to extradite him.
This latest pronouncement of the court signifies the intention of the
Philippine government to comply with its treaty obligations under
international law. Obviously, the court is confronted with a very delicate
situation involving two equally important competing interests, and that is,
citizen’s basic rights of due process vis a vis ironclad duties under a treaty.
The court in tilting the balance in favor of the interests of the State, had this
to say, “ The extraditee’s right to know is momentarily withheld during the
evaluation stage of the extradition process to accommodate the more
compelling interest of the State to prevent escape of potential extradites
which can be precipitated by premature information of the basis for his
request for extradition. x x x In sum, we rule that the temporary hold on
private respondent’s privilege of notice and hearing is a soft restraint on his
right to due process which will not deprive him of fundamental fairness
should he decide to resist the request for his extradition to the United States.
There is no denial of due process as long as fundamental fairness is
assured.”[3]
 [G.R. No. 139465. January 18, 2000.] The prospective extraditee under Section 2[c]
of Presidential Decree No. 1069 faces the threat of arrest, not
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, petitioner, vs. only after the extradition petition is filed in court, but even
HON. RALPH C. LANTION, Presiding during the evaluation proceeding itself by virtue of the
Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila, provisional arrest allowed under the treaty and the implementing
Branch 25, and MARK B. law. Thus, the evaluation process, in essence, partakes of the
JIMENEZ,respondents. nature of a criminal investigation making available certain
constitutional rights to the prospective extraditee. The Court
noted that there is a void in the provisions of the RP-US
Estelito P. Mendoza for private respondent. Extradition Treaty regarding the basic due process rights
available to a prospective extraditee at the evaluation stage of the
SYNOPSIS proceedings. The Court was constrained to apply the rules of fair
play, the due process rights of notice and hearing. Hence,
petitioner was ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the
The United States Government, on June 17, 1999, through
extradition request and its supporting papers and to grant the
Department of Foreign Affairs U. S. Note Verbale No. 0522,
latter a reasonable time within which to file his comment with
requested the Philippine Government for the extradition of Mark
supporting evidence.
Jimenez, herein private respondent, to the United States. The
request was forwarded the following day by the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Pending SYLLABUS
evaluation of the extradition documents by the DOJ, private
respondent requested for copies of the official extradition request 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; EXTRADITION
and all pertinent documents and the holding in abeyance of the TREATY; EVALUATION PROCESS, AN INVESTIGATIVE
proceedings. When his request was denied for being premature, OR INQUISITORIAL PROCESS. — The evaluation process,
private respondent resorted to an action just like the extradition proceedings proper, belongs to a class by
for mandamus, certiorari and prohibition. The trial court issued itself. It is sui generis. It is not a criminal investigation, but it is
an order maintaining and enjoining the DOJ from conducting also erroneous to say that it is purely an exercise of ministerial
further proceedings, hence, the instant petition.ECTSDa
functions. At such stage, the executive authority has the power:
Although the Extradition Law does not specifically (a) to make a technical assessment of the completeness and
indicate whether the extradition proceeding is criminal, civil, or a sufficiency of the extradition papers; (b) to outrightly deny the
special proceeding, it nevertheless provides the applicability of request if on its face and on the face of the supporting documents
the Rules of Court in the hearing of the petition insofar as the crimes indicated are not extraditable; and (c) to make a
practicable and not inconsistent with the summary nature of the determination whether or not the request is politically motivated,
proceedings. or that the offense is a military one which is not punishable under
non-military penal legislation (tsn, August 31, 1999, pp. 28-29;
Article 2 and Paragraph [3], Article 3, RP-US Extradition description in Ruperto applies to an administrative body
Treaty). Hence, said process may be characterized as an authorized to evaluate extradition documents. The body has no
investigative or inquisitorial process in contrast to a proceeding power to adjudicate in regard to the rights and obligations of
conducted in the exercise of an administrative body's quasi- both the Requesting State and the prospective extraditee. Its only
judicial power. power is to determine whether the papers comply with the
requirements of the law and the treaty and, therefore, sufficient
2. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; QUASI-JUDICIAL
to be the basis of an extradition petition. Such finding is thus
PROCEEDINGS; PHASES. — In administrative law, a quasi-
merely initial and not final. The body has no power to determine
judicial proceeding involves: (a) taking and evaluation of
whether or not the extradition should be effected. That is the role
evidence; (b) determining facts based upon the evidence
of the court. The body's power is limited to an initial finding of
presented; and (c) rendering an order or decision supported by
whether or not the extradition petition can be filed in court.
the facts proved (De Leon, Administrative Law:Text and Cases,
1993 ed., p. 198, citing Morgan vs. United States, 304 U.S. 1). 5. ID.; ID.; EVALUATION PROCESS, PARTAKES OF
NATURE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. — In contrast to
3. ID.; ID:; TEST OF DETERMINING WHETHER
ordinary investigations, the evaluation procedure is characterized
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY EXERCISES JUDICIAL
by certain peculiarities. Primarily, it sets into motion the wheels
FUNCTIONS OR MERELY INVESTIGATORY FUNCTIONS.
of the extradition process. Ultimately, it may result in the
— In Ruperto v. Torres (100 Phil. 1098 [1957], unreported), the
deprivation of liberty of the prospective extraditee. This
Court had occasion to rule on the functions of an investigatory
deprivation can be effected at two stages: First, the provisional
body with the sole power of investigation. It does not exercise
arrest of the prospective extraditee pending the submission of the
judicial functions and its power is limited to investigating the
request.Second, the temporary arrest of the prospective extraditee
facts and making findings in respect thereto. The Court laid
during the pendency of the extradition petition in court (Section
down the test of determining whether an administrative body is
6, Presidential Decree No. 1069). Clearly, there is an impending
exercising judicial functions or merely investigatory functions:
threat to a prospective extraditee's liberty as early as during the
Adjudication signifies the exercise of power and authority to
evaluation stage. It is not only an imagined threat to his liberty,
adjudicate upon the rights and obligations of the parties before it.
but a very imminent one. Because of these possible
Hence, if the only purpose for investigation is to evaluate
consequences, we conclude that the evaluation process is akin to
evidence submitted before it based on the facts and
an administrative agency conducting an investigative proceeding,
circumstances presented to it, and if the agency is not authorized
the consequences of which are essentially criminal since such
to make a final pronouncement affecting the parties, then there is
technical assessment sets off or commences the procedure for,
an absence of judicial discretion and judgment.
and ultimately, the deprivation of liberty of a prospective
4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; EXTRADITION extraditee. As described by petitioner himself, this is a "tool" for
TREATY; ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AUTHORIZED TO criminal law enforcement. In essence, therefore, the evaluation
EVALUATE EXTRADITION DOCUMENTS MERELY process partakes of the nature of a criminal investigation.
EXERCISES INVESTIGATORY FUNCTIONS. — The above
 6. ID.; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHTS AGAINST SELF-
INCRIMINATION; EXTENDS TO ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS WHICH POSSESS A CRIMINAL OR PENAL
ASPECT. — In Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners (28
SCRA 344 [1969]), we held that the right against self-
incrimination under Section 17, Article III of the 1987
Constitutionwhich is ordinarily available only in criminal
prosecutions, extends to administrative proceedings which
possess a criminal or penal aspect.
7. ID.; ID.; DUE PROCESS; COMPONENTS. — Due
process is comprised of two components — substantive due
process which requires the intrinsic validity of the law in
interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty, or
property, and procedural due process which consists of the two
basic rights of notice and hearing, as well as the guarantee of
being heard by an impartial and competent tribunal (Cruz,
Constitutional Law, 1993 Ed., pp. 102-106).
8. ID.; ID.; ID.; PERVADES NOT ONLY IN
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS BUT IN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AS WELL. — The basic
rights of notice and hearing pervade not only in criminal and
civil proceedings, but in administrative proceedings as well.
Non-observance of these rights will invalidate the proceedings.
Individuals are entitled to be notified of any pending case
affecting their interests, and upon notice, they may claim the
right to appear therein and present their side and to refute the
position of the opposing parties (Cruz, Phil. Administrative Law,
1996 ed., p, 64). In a preliminary investigation which is an
administrative investigatory proceeding, Section 3, Rule 112 of
the Rules of Court guarantees the respondent's basic due process
rights, granting him the right to be furnished a copy of the
complaint, the affidavits, and other supporting documents, and
the right to submit counter-affidavits and other supporting
documents within ten days from receipt thereof. Moreover, the
respondent shall have the right to examine all other evidence
submitted by the complainant.
9. ID.; ID.; ID.; CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH AND
SHELVED ASIDE IN EXTRADITION CASES. — Worthy of
inquiry is the issue of whether or not there is tentativeness of
administrative action. Is private respondent precluded from
enjoying the right to notice and hearing at a later time without
prejudice to him? Here lies the peculiarity and deviant
characteristic of the evaluation procedure. On one hand, there is
yet no extraditee, but ironically on the other, it results in an
administrative determination which, if adverse to the person
involved, may cause his immediate incarceration. The grant of
the request shall lead to the filing of the extradition petition in
court. The "accused" (as Section 2[c] of Presidential Decree No.
1069 calls him), faces the threat of arrest, not only after the
extradition petition is filed in court, but even during the
evaluation proceeding itself by virtue of the provisional arrest
allowed under the treaty and the implementing law. The
prejudice to the "accused" is thus blatant and manifest. Plainly,
the notice and hearing requirements of administrative due
process cannot be dispensed with and shelved aside.
10. ID.; ID.; POLITICAL RIGHTS AVAILABLE TO
FILIPINO CITIZENS. — Section 7 of Article III of
the Constitution guarantees political rights which are available to
citizens of the Philippines, namely: (1) the right to information
on matters of public concern, and (2) the corollary right of access
to official records and documents. The general right guaranteed
by said provision is the right to information on matters of public
concern. In its implementation, the right of access to official
records is likewise conferred. These cognate or related rights are
"subject to limitations as may be provided by law" (Bernas,
The 1987 Phil. Constitution A Reviewer-Primer, 1997 ed., p.
104) and rely on the premise that ultimately it is an informed and
critical public opinion which alone can protect the values of balance must be tilted, at such particular time, in favor of the
democratic government (Ibid.). interests necessary for the proper functioning of the government.
During the evaluation procedure, no official governmental action
11. ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT TO INFORMATION ON
of our own government has as yet been done; hence the
MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN, CONSTRUED. — The
invocation of the right is premature. Later, and in contrast,
concept of matters of public concern escapes exact definition.
records of the extradition hearing would already fall under
Strictly speaking, every act of a public officer in the conduct of
matters of public concern, because our government by then shall
the governmental process is a matter of public concern (Bernas,
have already made an official decision to grant the extradition
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 1996
request. The extradition of a fellow Filipino would be
ed., p. 336). This concept embraces a broad spectrum of subjects
forthcoming.
which the public may want to know, either because these directly
affect their lives or simply because matters arouse the interest of 14. ID.; INTERNATIONAL LAW; RULE OF PACTA SUNT
an ordinary citizen (Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, 150 SERVANDA; CONSTRUED. — The rule of pacta sunt servanda,
SCRA [1987]). Hence the real party in interest is the people and one of the oldest and most fundamental maxims of international
any citizen has "standing." law, requires the parties to a treaty to keep their agreement
therein in good faith. The observance of our country's legal
12. ID.; ID.; RIGHT TO INFORMATION;
duties under a treaty is also compelled by Section 2, Article II of
IMPLEMENTED BY ACCESS TO INFORMATION WITHIN
the Constitution which provides that "[t]he Philippines renounces
GOVERNMENT'S CONTROL. — The right to information is
war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally
implemented by the right of access to information within the
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the
control of the government (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the
land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice,
Republic of the Philippines, 1996 ed., p. 337). Such information
freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations."
may be contained in official records, and in documents and
papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions. 15. ID.; ID.; DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION;
WHEN APPLIED; CASE AT BAR. — Under the doctrine of
13. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT AVAILABLE DURING
incorporation, rules of international law form part of the law of
EVALUATION STAGE OF EXTRADITION WHERE NO
the land and no further legislative action is needed to make such
OFFICIAL PHILIPPINE ACTION HAS YET BEEN DONE. —
rules applicable in the domestic sphere (Salonga & Yap, Public
In the case at bar, the papers requested by private respondent
International Law, 1992 ed., p. 12). The doctrine of incorporation
pertain to official government action from the U.S. Government.
is applied whenever municipal tribunals (or local courts) are
No official action from our country has yet been taken.
confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict
Moreover, the papers have some relation to matters of foreign
between a rule of international law and the provisions of
relations with the U.S. Government. Consequently, if a third
the constitution or statute of the local state. Efforts should first be
party invokes this constitutional provision, stating that the
exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both since it is
extradition papers are matters of public concern since they may
to be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper
result in the extradition of a Filipino, we are afraid that the
regard for the generally accepted principles of international law
in observance of the Incorporation Clause in the above-cited
constitutional provision (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1996
ed., p. 55). In a situation, however, where the conflict is
irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of
international law and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that
municipal law should be upheld by the municipal courts (Ichong
vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 [1957]; Gonzales vs. Hechanova,
9 SCRA 230 [1963]; In re: Garcia, 2 SCRA 984 [1961]) for the
reason that such courts are organs of municipal law and are
accordingly bound by it in all circumstances (Salonga & Yap, op.
cit., p. 13).
16. ID.; ID.; ID.; NO PRIMACY OF INTERNATIONAL
LAW OVER NATIONAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW. — The fact
that international law has been made part of the law of the land
does not pertain to or imply the primacy of international law over
national or municipal law in the municipal sphere. The doctrine
of incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules
of international law are given equal standing with, but are not
superior to, national legislative enactments. Accordingly, the
principle lex posterior derogat priori takes effect — a treaty may
repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. In states where
the constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the
Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be
invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution (Ibid.).
17. ID.; EXTRADITION TREATY; DOES NOT
PRECLUDE APPLICATION OF DUE PROCESS. — In the
absence of a law or principle of law, we must apply the rules of
fair play. An application of the basic twin due process rights of
notice and hearing will not go against the treaty or the
implementing law. Neither the Treaty nor the Extradition Law
precludes these rights from a prospective extradites. Similarly,
American jurisprudence and procedures on extradition pose no
proscription. In fact, in interstate extradition proceedings as
explained above, the prospective extraditee may even request for
copies of the extradition documents from the governor of the
asylum state, and if he does, his right to be supplied the same
becomes a demandable right (35 C.J.S. 410).
18. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ESSENCE OF DUE
PROCESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS. — The
basic principles of administrative law instruct us that "the
essence of due process in administrative proceedings is an
opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek
reconsideration of the actions or ruling complained of (Mirano
vs. NLRC, 270 SCRA 96 [1997]; Padilla vs. NLRC, 273 SCRA
457 [1997]; PLDT vs. NLRC, 276 SCRA 1 [1997]; Helpmate,
Inc. vs. NLRC, 276 SCRA 315 [1997]; Aquinas School vs.
Magnaye, 278 SCRA 602 [1997]; Jamer vs. NLRC, 278 SCRA
632 [1997]). In essence, procedural due process refers to the
method or manner by which the law is enforced (Corona vs.
United Harbor Pilots Association of the Phils., 283 SCRA 31
[1997]). This Court will not tolerate the least disregard of
constitutional guarantees in the enforcement of a law or treaty.
Petitioner's fears that the Requesting State may have valid
objections to the Requested State's non-performance of its
commitments under the Extradition Treaty are insubstantial and
should not be given paramount consideration.
19. REMEDIAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; EQUITY
JURISDICTION; AVAILED OF ONLY IN ABSENCE OF,
AND NEVER AGAINST, STATUTORY LAW OR JUDICIAL
PRONOUNCEMENTS. — We have ruled time and again that
this Court's equity jurisdiction, which is aptly described as
"justice outside legality," may be availed of only in the absence
of, and never against, statutory law or judicial pronouncements
(Smith Bell & Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 530
[1997]; David-Chan vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 677
[1997]). The constitutional issue in the case at bar does not even
call for "justice outside legality," since private respondent's due
process rights, although not guaranteed by statute or by treaty,
are protected by constitutional guarantees. We would not be true
to the organic law of the land if we choose strict construction
over guarantees against the deprivation of liberty. That would not
be in keeping with the principles of democracy on which
our Constitution is premised.
(Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, [January 18,
|||
2000], 379 PHIL 165-251)
[G.R. No. 139465. October 17, 2000.]
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, petitioner, vs.
HON. RALPH C. LANTION, Presiding
Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 25, and MARK B.
JIMENEZ,respondents.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Estelino P. Mendoza for private respondent.
SYNOPSIS
As a probable extraditee under the RP-US Extradition
Treaty, private respondent contended that he should be furnished
a copy of the US government request for his extradition and its
supporting documents even while he is still under evaluation by
petitioner Secretary of Justice. The Secretary of Justice,
however, feared the demanded notice is equivalent to a notice to
flee.
In permanently enjoining the RTC from further
conducting proceedings in Civil Case No. 99-94684, the
Supreme Court held: that private respondent is not entitled to the
right of notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the
extradition process; that there is no provision in the RP-US
Extradition Treaty and in P.D. No. 1069giving an extraditee such
right; that a court cannot alter, amend or add to a treaty any
clause, upon any motion of equity, or general convenience, or
substantial justice; that the terms of the treaty should be
interpreted in the light of their intent; that other countries with
similar extradition treaties with the Philippines have expressed
the same interpretation adopted by the Philippine and US
governments; and that an extradition proceeding is sui generis,
not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all the
rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. CcHDaA
SYLLABUS
1. POLITICAL LAW; INTERNATIONAL LAW;
TREATIES; RP-US EXTRADITION TREATY; POTENTIAL
EXTRADITEE IS BEREFT OF RIGHT TO NOTICE AND
HEARING DURING EVALUATION STAGE; REASONS;
CASE AT BAR. — The jugular issue is whether or not the
private respondent is entitled to the due process right to notice
and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition
process. We now hold that private respondent is bereft of the
right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the
extradition process. First. P.D. No. 1069 which implements the
RP-US Extradition Treaty provides the time when an extraditee
shall be furnished a copy of the petition for extradition as well as
its supporting papers, i.e., after the filing of the petition for
extradition in the extradition court. There is no provision in the
RP-US Extradition Treaty and in P.D. No. 1069 which gives an
extraditee the right to demand from the petitioner Secretary of
Justice copies of the extradition request from the US government
and its supporting documents and to comment thereon while the
request is still undergoing evaluation. We cannot write a
provision in the treaty giving private respondent that right where
there is none. It is well-settled that a "court cannot alter, amend,
or add to a treaty by the insertion of any clause, small or great, or
dispense with any of its conditions and requirements or take
away any qualification, or integral part of any stipulation, upon
any motion of equity, or general convenience, or substantial
justice." Second. All treaties, including the RP-US Extradition
Treaty, should be interpreted in light of their intent. Nothing less
than theVienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to which the
Philippines is a signatory provides that "a treaty shall be
interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary
meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context
and in light of its object and purpose." . . . It cannot be gainsaid
that today, countries like the Philippines forge extradition treaties
to arrest the dramatic rise of international and transnational
crimes like terrorism and drug trafficking. Extradition treaties
provide the assurance that the punishment of these crimes will
not be frustrated by the frontiers of territorial sovereignty.
Implicit in the treaties should be the unbending commitment that
the perpetrators of these crimes will not be coddled by any
signatory state. It ought to follow that the RP-US Extradition
Treaty calls for an interpretation that will minimize if not prevent
the escape of extraditees from the long arm of the law and
expedite their trial. . . . Third. An equally compelling factor to
consider is the understanding of the parties themselves to the
RP-US Extradition Treaty as well as the general interpretation of
the issue in question by other countries with similar treaties with
the Philippines. The rule is recognized that while courts have the
power to interpret treaties, the meaning given them by the
departments of government particularly charged with their
negotiation and enforcement is accorded great weight. The
reason for the rule is laid down in Santos III v. Northwest Orient
Airlines, et al., where we stressed that a treaty is a joint executive
legislative act which enjoys the presumption that "it was first
carefully studied and determined to be constitutional before it
was adopted and given the force of law in the country." . .
. Fourth. . . . An extradition proceeding is sui generis. It is not a
criminal proceedingwhich will call into operation all the rights
of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. To begin with,
the process of extradition does not involve the determination of
the guilt or innocence of an accused. His guilt or innocence will
be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be extradited.
Hence, as a rule, constitutional rights that are only relevant to
determine the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot be invoked
by an extraditee especially by one whose extradition papers are
still undergoing evaluation. . . . Private respondent's plea for due
process . . . collides with important state interests which cannot
also be ignored for they serve the interest of the greater majority.
. . . Petitioner avers that the Court should give more weight to
our national commitment under the RP-US Extradition Treaty to
expedite the extradition to the United States of persons charged
with violation of some of its laws. Petitioner also emphasizes the
need to defer to the judgment of the Executive on matters
relating to foreign affairs in order not to weaken if not violate the
principle of separation of powers. Considering that in the case at
bar, the extradition proceeding is only at its evaluation stage, the
nature of the right being claimed by the private respondent is
nebulous and the degree of prejudice he will allegedly suffer is
weak, we accord greater weight to the interests espoused by the
government thru the petitioner Secretary of Justice. . . .
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; THREAT TO PRIVATE
RESPONDENT'S LIBERTY IS MERELY HYPOTHETICAL
IN CASE AT BAR. — The supposed threat to private
respondent's liberty is perceived to come from several provisions
of the RP-US Extradition Treaty and P.D. No. 1069 which allow
provisional arrest and temporary detention. . . . Both the RP-US
Extradition Treaty and P.D. No. 1069 clearly provide that private
respondent may be provisionally arrested only pending receipt of
the request for extradition. Our DFA has long received the
extradition request from the United States and has turned it over
to the DOJ. It is undisputed that until today, the United States has
not requested for private respondent's provisional arrest.
Therefore, the threat to private respondent's liberty has passed. It
is more imagined than real. Nor can the threat to private
respondent's liberty come from Section 6 of P.D. No. 1069. . . . It
is evident from the above provision that a warrant of arrest for
the temporary detention of the accused pending the extradition
hearing may only be issued by the presiding judge of the
extradition court upon filing of the petition for extradition. As the
extradition process is still in the evaluation stage of pertinent
documents and there is no certainty that a petition for extradition
will be filed in the appropriate extradition court, the threat to
private respondent's liberty is merely hypothetical.
(Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465 (Resolution),
|||

[October 17, 2000], 397 PHIL 423-457)