Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion
Uploaded by
Rizchelle Sampang-ManaogSecretary of Justice vs. Lantion
Uploaded by
Rizchelle Sampang-ManaogPOLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
COLLEGE OF LAW
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
FIRST SEMESTER AY 2024 - 2025
NAME: MANAOG, Rizchelle S.
SECTION: JD 2-3
CASE DIGEST
TITLE OF THE CASE: Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion and Mark Jimenez
GR # AND DATE: G.R. No. 139465. January 18, 2000.
PONENTE: MELO, J.
CASE DOCTRINE 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 extraditee. 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).
FACTS On January 13, 1977, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree
No. 1069, which outlined procedures for the extradition of individuals who
committed crimes abroad. This decree was based on the doctrine of incorporation
under the Philippine Constitution and aimed to facilitate cooperation in suppressing
crimes across borders. It also set the groundwork for future extradition treaties.
On November 13, 1994, Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon signed the
"Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and
the Government of the United States of America" in Manila. The Senate ratified this
treaty with Resolution No. 11, and it included amendments related to the
admissibility of supporting documents for extradition requests.
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received a formal request from the
U.S., through Note Verbale No. 0522 from the Department of Foreign Affairs,
seeking the extradition of Mark Jimenez to the U.S. The request was supported by
a Grand Jury Indictment, a warrant of arrest from the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Florida, and other documentation indicating Jimenez's alleged
involvement in violations of U.S. laws.
On the same day, the petitioner issued Department Order No. 249, which
designated a panel of attorneys to handle the case in accordance with Section 5(1)
of Presidential Decree No. 1069.
Pending evaluation of the extradition documents, the private respondent, through
counsel, wrote a letter on July 1, 1999, requesting copies of the official extradition
request from the U.S. Government and associated documents, as well as time to
comment on them. He also requested that the proceedings be suspended until he
received the documents.
Later, he specifically asked for a copy of the U.S. Government's request and, upon
receiving it, additional time to amplify his comments. In response, the petitioner
sent a letter on July 13, 1999, received by the private respondent on August 4, 199,
denying these requests.
On August 6, 1999, the private respondent filed a petition with the Regional Trial
Court of the National Capital Judicial Region against the Secretary of Justice,
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and Director of the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) for mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition. The petition sought to compel the
petitioner to provide the extradition documents, grant access to them, and allow the
private respondent an opportunity to comment on or oppose the extradition request.
It also requested that the court restrain the petitioner from proceeding with the
extradition and enjoin the NBI and Secretary of Foreign Affairs from taking any
actions related to the extradition. The petition was docketed as Civil Case No. 99-
94684 and assigned to Branch 25, presided by Judge Ralph C. Lantion.
The case was heard on August 9, 1999, and the petitioner’s request for additional
time to file a memorandum was denied. On August 10, 1999, the court issued an
order maintaining the status quo. It prohibited the respondents from taking any
further actions related to the U.S. extradition request, including filing a petition in
court, for 20 days from service of the order.
ISSUE: Whether or not a citizen’s constitutional due process rights must be upheld when
implementing the government’s obligations under the RP-US Extradition Treaty.
RULING: Yes.
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.
Plainly, the notice and hearing requirements of administrative due process cannot
be dispensed with and shelved aside.
From the procedures earlier abstracted, after the filing of the extradition petition
and during the judicial determination of the propriety of extradition, the rights of
notice and hearing are clearly granted to the prospective extraditee.
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 extraditee. 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).
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]). Verily, as one traverses treacherous waters of conflicting and
opposing currents of liberty and government authority, he must ever hold the oar of
freedom in the stronger arm, lest an errant and wayward course be laid.
dismissed.
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.
FALLO The instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Petitioner is ordered to
furnish private respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting
papers, and to grant him a reasonable period within which to file his comment with
supporting evidence. The incidents in Civil Case No. 99-94684 having been
rendered moot and academic by this decision, the same is hereby ordered.
