SECRETARY OF JUSTICE V. LANTION GR 139465, 17 October 2000
FACTS:
On 13 January 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree 1069 "Prescribing the Procedure for the Extradition of Persons Who Have Committed Crimes in a Foreign Country".
On 13 November 1994, then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon, representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed in Manila the "Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America.
The Senate, by way of Resolution 11, expressed its concurrence in the ratification of the said treaty. It also expressed its concurrence in the Diplomatic Notes correcting Paragraph (5)(a), Article 7 thereof (on the admissibility of the documents accompanying an extradition request upon certification by the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the requested state resident in the Requesting State).
On 18 June 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U. S. Note Verbale 0522 containing a request for the extradition of Mark Jimenez to the United States.
Attached to the Note Verbale were the Grand Jury Indictment, the warrant of arrest issued by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, and other supporting documents for said extradition.
Jimenez was charged in the United States for violation of
(a) 18 USC 371 (Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States, 2 counts),
(b) 26 USC 7201 (Attempt to evade or defeat tax, 4 counts),
(c) 18 USC 1343 (Fraud by wire, radio, or television, 2 counts),
(d) 18 USC 1001 (False statement or entries, 6 counts), and
(E) 2 USC 441f (Election contributions in name of another; 33 counts).
On the same day, the Secretary issued Department Order 249 designating and authorizing a panel of attorneys to take charge of and to handle the case.
Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition documents, Jimenez (on 1 July 1999 requested copies of the official extradition request from the US Government, as well as all documents and papers submitted therewith, and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have received copies of the requested papers. The Secretary denied the request.
On 6 August 1999, Jimenez filed with the Regional Trial Court a petition against the Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation,
l for mandamus (to compel the Justice Secretary to furnish Jimenez the extradition documents, to give him access thereto, and to afford him an opportunity to comment on, or oppose, the extradition request, and thereafter to evaluate the request impartially, fairly and objectively);
l certiorari (to set aside the Justice Secretary’s letter dated 13 July 1999); and prohibition (to restrain the Justice Secretary from considering the extradition request and from filing an extradition petition in court;
l and to enjoin the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the NBI from performing any act directed to the extradition of Jimenez to the United States), with an application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction.
The trial court ruled in favor of Jimenez. The Secretary filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
On 18 January 2000, by a vote of 9-6, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and ordered the Justice Secretary to furnish Jimenez 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.
IN SUMMARY:
The Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs a request from the United States for the extradition of Mark Jimenez to the United States pursuant to PD No. 1609 prescribing the procedure for extradition of persons who have committed a crime in a foreign country. Jimenez requested for copies of the request and that he be given ample time to comment on said request. The petitioners denied the request pursuant to the RP-US Extradition Treaty.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent’s entitlement to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties of the Philippine Government under the RP-US Extradition Treaty.
HELD:
NO. The human rights of person and the rights of the accused guaranteed in the Constitution should take precedence over treaty rights claimed by a contracting party, the doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with a situation where there is a conflict between a rule of the international law and the constitution. Efforts must first be made in order to harmonize the provisions so as to give effect to both but if the conflict is irreconcilable, the municipal law must be upheld. 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 the municipal law in the municipal sphere. In states where the constitution is the highest law of the land, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution.
In the case at bar, private respondent does not only face a clear and present danger of loss of property or employment but of liberty itself, which may eventually lead to his forcible banishment to a foreign land. The convergence of petitioners favorable action on the extradition request and the deprivation of private respondents liberty is easily comprehensible.
We have ruled time and again that this Courts 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.The constitutional issue in the case at bar does not even call for "justice outside legality," since private respondents 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.
Thus, 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.