Secretary of Justice v.

Lantion
Facts: In 1977, PD 1069 or the Philippine Extradition Law was issued by Pres.
Marcos.
In 1994, RP-US Extradition Treaty was signed in Manila between Phils
and USA, and said treaty was concurred by the Senate.
In 1999, an extradition request of private respondent was sent by the
Secretary of State of the US to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the
Philippines. Based on the document, Mark Jimenez was being charged with
Conspiracy to commit offense, Attempted tax evasion, Fraud by wire, radio or
TV, False statement and Election offense. On the same day, DFA Secretary
transmitted the extradition request to the DOJ Secretary for its technical
evaluation and assessment.
Pending evaluation, private respondent Jimenez wrote a letter to the
DOJ requesting to be furnished with the Extradition documents from the US.
The DOJ denied the letter request on the ground of confidentiality of
documents and for being premature. Note that evaluation by the department
of the document is NOT a preliminary investigation nor akin to investigation
of criminal cases. The purpose is merely to determine whether the
procedures and requirement under the law and treaty have been complied
with by the requesting State.
Aggrieved, private respondent filed before the RTC petitions for
Mandamus, Certiorari and Prohibition with application for TRO and writ of
preliminary injunction.
Judge Lantion of RTC Manila issued a TRO in favor of respondent.
DOJ Secretary filed before the SC for immediate remedy. SC ordered
RTC judge to cease and desist from enforcing the assailed order. Issue on the
merits of the case was heard on oral arguments.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF NOTICE

AND HEARING ARE INDISPENSABLE DURING THE EVALUATION STAGE OF THE
EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS

HELD: (*2 DECISIONS)

1. On JANUARY 2000, SC through Justice Melo ruled in the AFFIRMATIVE.

[NOTE THOUGH THAT there was a failure on the DFA to strictly observe the
Extradition Law. Under Sec. 5 (1) of said Law, the DOJ Sec. has the ministerial
duty of filing the extradition papers. In this case, it was the DOJ Secretary
who made the extradition evaluation when it should be done by the DFA Sec.
]
NUANCES. The evaluation process, just like extradition proceedings, is sui
generis. It is not criminal investigation, but it is also not merely an exercise
of ministerial functions. During the evaluation stage, the Secretary of Foreign
Affairs shall :1. Make technical assessment of the completeness and
sufficiency of the extradition papers b. outrightly deny the request if on its
face the documents are incomplete and/o crime indicated is not extraditable
and 3. Make a determination W/N the request is politically motivated Hence,
this process is investigative or inquisitorial process in contrast to a
proceeding conducted in the exercise of an administrative bodys quasijudicial power.
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. In dividuals 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 opposing party.
REASON FOR RULING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE:
1.The evaluation process is akin to an administrative agency conducting an
investigative proceeding, the consequences of which are criminal. Although
the law is silent on whether or not notice and hearing shall be granted to the
extraditee , the extradition request pending evaluation creates an impending
threat to a prospective extraditees liberty which is imminent in nature.
Because of this possible consequence of arrest, the evaluation process
partakes of the nature of a criminal investigation.
2. This case does not fall in any of the instances when right to notice &
hearing may be dispensed with. The peculiarity and deviant characteristic of
evaluation proceeding is that on one hand, there is yet no extradite, but
ironically on the other, it results in an administrative determination which, if
adverse to the person involved, may cause immediate incarceration. The
accused faces the threat of arrest, not only after the extradition petition is
filed in court, but even during the evaluation stage itself by virtue of the

provisional arrest allowed under the treaty and the implementing law. There
is therefore blatant and manifest prejudice to the accused during the
evaluation stage. Therefore, it cannot be dispensed with.
3. In case of conflict between international law and municipal law, efforts
should first be exerted to harmonize them. In case of irreconcilable
difference, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld. In the
case at bar, although said rights are granted to extradite after the filing of
the extradition petition in court by the DOJ Secretary, the law is silent as to
W/N these rights are granted during the evaluation. When the law is silent,
we must apply rules of fair play. A libertarian approach is thus called for.

2. In OCTOBER 2000, SC through Justice Puno REVERSED decision issued in

January 2000. We now hold that private respondent is bereft of the right to
notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process,
for 6 REASONS:
First. P.D.
No.
1069[3] 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. (Art. 6 of the Law)
Second. All treaties, including the RP-US Extradition Treaty, should be
interpreted in light of their intent. Nothing less than the Vienna
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.
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.[7] The reason for the rule is laid
down in Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines, et al.,[8] 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
proceeding which 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.[13] 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.
Fifth. Private respondent would also impress upon the Court the urgency of
his right to notice and hearing considering the alleged threat to his liberty
"which may be more priceless than life." [24] The supposed threat to private
respondents liberty is perceived to come from several provisions of the RPUS Extradition Treaty and P.D. No. 1069 which allow provisional arrest and
temporary detention. BUT THIS IS MORE IMAGINED THAN REAL.
Sixth. To be sure, private respondents plea for due process deserves
serious consideration involving as it does his primordial right to liberty. His
plea to due process, however, collides with important state interests
which cannot also be ignored for they serve the interest of the
greater majority. In tilting the balance in favor of the interests of
the State, the Court stresses that it is not ruling that the private
respondent has no right to due process at all throughout the length
and breadth of the extrajudicial proceedings. Procedural due process
requires a determination of what process is due, when it is due, and the
degree of what is due. Stated otherwise, a prior determination should be
made as to whether procedural protections are at all due and when
they are due, which in turn depends on the extent to which an
individual will be "condemned to suffer grievous loss.