PIL Case Digests
Issue: W/N Jimenez’ entitlement to notice and hearing during the
International Law and Municipal Law
Phlippine Practice
Sec. of Justice v. Lantion
Facts:
1. DFA requested DOJ to extradite Mark Jimenez to the U.S. for the
Grand Jury Indictment pursuant to PD 1069 -Prescribing the
Procedure for the Extradition of Persons Who Have Committed
Crimes in a Foreign Country. This was enacted during the Marcos
era in 1977.
2. Note that on November 113, 1994, then SOJ Franklin Drilon,
signed the "Extradition Treaty Between the Philippines and the
USA.”
3. The Senate, through Resolution 11, expressed its concurrence in
the ratification of the said treaty.
4. Along with the request, a warrant of arrest and other supporting
documents for said extradition were attached.
5. Jimenez was charged for:
a. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the US
b. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
c. Fraud by wire, radio, or television
d. False statement or entries
e. Election contribution in name of another
6. While DOJ was evaluating the request, Jimenez requested that he
be furnished copies of the documents pertaining to his
extradition
7. He was denied access by the SOJ
8. Jimenez brought the issue to the RTC who ruled in his favor.
9. Through certiorari, SOJ brought the case to the SC
10. SC granted Jimenez access to the documents
evaluation stage of the proceedings constitute a breach of the legal
duties of the Philippines under the Extradition Treaty
Ruling: NO. This case shows us how even Monist states uphold the
Constitution when IL is in conflict with it.
1. Treaty rights claimed by a contracting party must yield to human
rights and the rights of the accused guaranteed by the
Constitution.
2. The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal
tribunals are confronted with a situation where there is a conflict
between IL and the Constitution.
3. Efforts must first be made to harmonize and give effect to both
but if the conflict is irreconcilable, the municipal law must be
upheld.
4. The fact that international law has been made part of the law of
the land via the incorporation clause does not imply the primacy
of IL over the municipal law in the municipal sphere.
5. 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.
6. Here, Jimenez faces not only 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. To
deny him access to the extradition documents would be to defeat
his constitutionally granted rights.
Govt. of Hong Kong v. Judge Olalia
Facts:
1. Private respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong
Court with 3 counts of “accepting an advantage as agent,”
violating Section 9(1)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance,
Cap. 201 of Hong Kong.
BJ Notes ​| 1
PIL Case Digests
2. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region filed with the RTC of
Manila a petition for the extradition of private respondent.
3. After hearing, Judge Bernardo, Jr. issued an Order denying the
petition for bail, holding that there is no Philippine law granting
bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high
“flight risk.”
4. Muñoz filed a MR of the Order denying his application for bail
which was granted.
5. Hong Kong filed an urgent motion to vacate the above Order, but
it was denied. Hong Kong claims Judge Olalia acted with
GADALEJ as there is no provision in the Constitution granting
bail to a potential extraditee.
Issue: May Munoz be granted bail?
Ruling: YES.
1. Yes. While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of
bail to an extraditee, however, there is no provision prohibiting
him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right to due process
under the Constitution.
2. While the court in the case of SOJ v Lantion held that the
constitutional provision on bail does not apply to extradition
proceedings, as it is available only in criminal proceedings. SC
noted the following IL trends:
a. the growing importance of the individual person in
public international;
b. the higher value now being given to human rights;
c. the corresponding duty of countries to observe these
universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty
obligations; and
d. the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the
individual under our fundamental law, on one hand, and
the law on extradition, on the other.
3. With these recent developments in IL, where emphasis is given
to the worth of the individual and the sanctity of human rights,
SC held that an extraditee may be allowed to post bail as forming
part of due process
Cathay Pacific Airways v. CA
Facts:
1. Respondent Tomas Alcantara was a first class passenger of
Cathay Pacific from Manila to Hongkong and onward from
Hongkong to Jakarta. The flew to attend a conference.
2. He checked his luggage containing clothes and papers he needed
for the conference.
3. Upon arrival in Jakarta, Alcantara discovered that his luggage
was missing.
4. Alcantara was told that his luggage was left in Hongkong.
5. For this, Alcantara was offered $20 as “inconvenience money" to
buy his immediate personal needs until the luggage could be
delivered to him.
6. Alcantara, as a result, had to seek postponement of his
pre-arranged conference.
Issues:
1. W/N there was breach of contract making Cathay Pacific liable
for damages
2. W/N the Warsaw COnvention is applicable in the case
Ruling:
1. YES. Cathay Pacific breached its contract of carriage when it
failed to deliver his luggage at the designated place and time, it
being the obligation of a common carrier to carry its passengers
and their luggage safely to their destination, which includes the
duty not to delay their transportation, and the evidence shows
that petitioner acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
BJ Notes ​| 2
PIL Case Digests
2. Although the Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law
in this country, said convention does not operate as an exclusive
enumeration of the instances for declaring a carrier liable for
breach of contract of carriage or as an absolute limit of the extent
of that liability.
3. It must not be construed to preclude the operation of the Civil
Code and other pertinent laws. It does not regulate, much less
exempt, the carrier from liability for damages for violating the
rights of its passengers under the contract of carriage, especially
if wilful misconduct on the part of the carrier's employees is
found or established.

NOTES: Warsaw Convention - international convention which regulates

liability for international carriage of persons, luggage, or goods
performed by aircraft for reward.

The pertinent chapter of the convention in this case is Chapter III -

LIability of the carrier. Wasn’t discussed much in the case but for further
readings, please see:
http://www.3plnews.com/warsaw-convention/chapter-iii-liability-of-th
e-carrier.html

J. Brion’s Separate Concurring Opinion: Intellectual Property Assoc.

Of the Phils. V. Ochoa

BJ Notes ​| 3