Due Process

Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, GR 139465 (Jan. 18, 2000)

FACTS:

Department of Justice (DOJ) received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S. a request for
the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the U.S. for violation of Conspiracy to Commit
Offense, Attempt to Evade Tax, Fraud by Wire, Radio, or Television, False Statement, and Election
Contribution in Name of Another.

During the evaluation process of the extradition, the private respondent, requested the
petitioner, Secretary of Justice, to furnish him copies of the extradition request from the U.S.
government, that he be given ample time to comment regarding the extradition request against him
after he shall have received copies of the requested papers, and to suspend the proceeding in the
meantime.

The petitioner, Secretary of Justice denied the request in consistent with Art. 7 of the RP – US
Extradition Treaty which provides that the Philippine Government must represent the interests of the
U.S. in any proceedings arising from an extradition request.

The private respondent filed with the RTC against the petitioner Hon. Ralph Lantion (presiding
judge RTC Manila Branch 25) a mandamus, a certiorari, and a prohibition to enjoin the petitioner, the
Secretary of DFA, and NBI from performing any acts directed to the extradition of the respondent, for it
will be a deprivation of his rights to due process of notice and hearing.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Mark Jimenez is entitled to the basic rights of due process over
the government’s duties under a treaty?

RULING:

Yes. According to the principle of “Pacta Sunt Servanda”, parties to a treaty should keep their
agreements to good faith. However, Sec. 2 of Art. 2 of the Constitution (incorporation clause) provides
that the Philippines “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land”.

Incorporation clause is applied when there is a conflict between the international law and
local/municipal law. However, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the
municipal court.

The fact that the international law has been made part of the law of the land does not imply the
primacy of international law over national or municipal law in the municipal sphere. Rules of
international law are given an equal standing with, but not superior to, the national legislative
enactment. The principle of “Lex Posterior Derogat Priori” clarifies that a treaty may repeal a statute and
a statute may repeal a treaty. And the Republic of the Philippines considers its Constitution as the
highest law of the land, therefore, both statutes and treaty may be invalidated if they are conflict with
the constitution.