Secretary of Justice vs Lantion

This entry was posted in and tagged on

Doctrine of Incorporation

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE VS LANTION

G.R. No. L-139465 January 18, 2000

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, petitioner,

vs.
HON. RALPH C. LANTION, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 25, and MARK B. JIMENEZ, respondents.

Facts:

This is a petition for review of a decision of the Manila Regional Trial Court
(RTC). The Department of Justice received a request from the Department of
Foreign Affairs for the extradition of respondent Mark Jimenez to the U.S.
The Grand Jury Indictment. The warrant for his arrest, and other supporting
documents for said extradition were attached along with the request. Charges
include:

1. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the US

2. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
3. Fraud by wire, radio, or television
4. False statement or entries
5. Election contribution in name of another

The Department of Justice (DOJ), through a designated panel proceeded with

the technical evaluation and assessment of the extradition treaty which they
found having matters needed to be addressed. Respondent, then requested
for copies of all the documents included in the extradition request and for
him to be given ample time to assess it. The Secretary of Justice denied
request on the following grounds:

1. He found it premature to secure him copies prior to the completion of

the evaluation. At that point in time, the DOJ is in the process of
evaluating whether the procedures and requirements under the relevant
law (PD 1069 Philippine Extradition Law) and treaty (RP-US Extradition
Treaty) have been complied with by the Requesting Government.
 Evaluation by the DOJ of the documents is not a preliminary
investigation like in criminal cases making the constitutionally
guaranteed rights of the accused in criminal prosecution inapplicable.
2. The U.S. requested for the prevention of unauthorized disclosure of the
information in the documents.
3. The department is not in position to hold in abeyance proceedings in
connection with an extradition request, as Philippines is bound to
Vienna Convention on law of treaties such that every treaty in force is
binding upon the parties.

Mark Jimenez then filed a petition against the Secretary of Justice. RTC
presiding Judge Lantion favored Jimenez. Secretary of Justice was made to
issue a copy of the requested papers, as well as conducting further
proceedings. Thus, this petition is now at bar.

Issue/s:

Whether or not respondents 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.

Discussions:

The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are

confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a
rule of international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of a
local state. Efforts should be done to harmonize them. 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. The doctrine of
incorporation decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing,
but are not superior to, national legislative enactments.

Ruling/s:

No. The human rights of person, Filipino or foreigner, and the rights of the
accused guaranteed in our Constitution should take precedence over treaty
rights claimed by a contracting state. The duties of the government to the
individual deserve preferential consideration when they collide with its treaty
obligations to the government of another state. This is so although we
recognize treaties as a source of binding obligations under generally accepted
principles of international law incorporated in our Constitution as part of the
law of the land.