MODULE 1 PIL CASES
JUSTICE V. HON. LANTION
GR NO. 139465 JAN. 18 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,
- 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);
- 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;
- 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 petitioner’s
favorable action on the extradition request and the deprivation
of private respondents liberty is easily comprehensible.
We have ruled time and again this Court’s 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.
G.R. No. 118295 May 2, 1997
WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA et al, petitioners, vs. EDGARDO
ANGARA, et al, respondents.
MODULE 1 PIL CASES
Facts:
Petitioners prayed for the nullification, on constitutional
grounds, of the concurrence of the Philippine Senate in the
ratification by the President of the Philippines of the
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO
Agreement, for brevity) and for the prohibition of its
implementation and enforcement through the release and
utilization of public funds, the assignment of public officials
and employees, as well as the use of government properties and
resources by respondent-heads of various executive offices
concerned therewith.
They contended that WTO agreement violates the mandate of
the 1987 Constitution to “develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy effectively controlled by
Filipinos x x x (to) give preference to qualified Filipinos (and
to) promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic
materials and locally produced goods” as (1) the WTO requires
the Philippines “to place nationals and products of member-
countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products”
and (2) that the WTO “intrudes, limits and/or impairs” the
constitutional powers of both Congress and the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World
Trade Organization unduly limit, restrict and impair Philippine
sovereignty specifically the legislative power which, under Sec.
2, Article VI, 1987 Philippine Constitution is ‘vested in the
Congress of the Philippines.
Held:
No, the WTO agreement does not unduly limit, restrict, and
impair the Philippine sovereignty, particularly the legislative
power granted by the Philippine Constitution. The Senate was
acting in the proper manner when it concurred with the
President’s ratification of the agreement.
While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and
all-encompassing on the domestic level, it is however subject
to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the
Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family
of nations. Unquestionably, the Constitution did not envision a
hermit-type isolation of the country from the rest of the world.
In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the
Constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres
to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation and amity, with all nations.” By the doctrine of
incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted
principles of international law, which are considered to be
automatically part of our own laws. One of the oldest and most
fundamental rules in international law is pacta sunt servanda
— international agreements must be performed in good faith.
“A treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation but creates
a legally binding obligation on the parties x x x. A state which
has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make
in its legislations such modifications as may be necessary to
ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken.”
By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the
absoluteness of sovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations
may surrender some aspects of their state power in
exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from a
convention or pact. After all, states, like individuals, live with
coequals, and in pursuit of mutually covenanted objectives and
benefits, they also commonly agree to limit the exercise of
their otherwise absolute rights. Thus, treaties have been used
to record agreements between States concerning such widely
diverse matters as, for example, the lease of naval bases, the
sale or cession of territory, the termination of war, the
regulation of conduct of hostilities, the formation of alliances,
the regulation of commercial relations, the settling of claims,
the laying down of rules governing conduct in peace and the
establishment of international organizations. The sovereignty of
a state therefore cannot in fact and in reality be considered
absolute. Certain restrictions enter into the picture: (1)
limitations imposed by the very nature of membership in the
family of nations and (2) limitations imposed by treaty
stipulations. As aptly put by John F. Kennedy, “Today, no
nation can build its destiny alone. The age of self-sufficient
nationalism is over. The age of interdependence is here.”
The WTO reliance on “most favored nation,” “national
treatment,” and “trade without discrimination” cannot be struck
down as unconstitutional as in fact they are rules of equality
and reciprocity that apply to all WTO members. Aside from
envisioning a trade policy based on “equality and reciprocity,”
the fundamental law encourages industries that are
“competitive in both domestic and foreign markets,” thereby
demonstrating a clear policy against a sheltered domestic trade
environment, but one in favor of the gradual development of
robust industries that can compete with the best in the foreign
markets. Indeed, Filipino managers and Filipino enterprises
have shown capability and tenacity to compete internationally.
And given a free trade environment, Filipino entrepreneurs and
managers in Hongkong have demonstrated the Filipino capacity
to grow and to prosper against the best offered under a policy
of laissez faire.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Kuroda v. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949
I. THE FACTS
Petitioner Shigenori Kuroda, the Commanding General of the
Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines during the Japanese
occupation, was charged before the Philippine Military
Commission of war crimes. He questioned the constitutionality
of E.O. No. 68 that created the National War Crimes Office and
prescribed rules on the trial of accused war criminals. He
contended the Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague
Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare
and therefore he is charged of crimes not based on law, national
and international.
II. THE ISSUES
Was E.O. No. 68 valid and constitutional?
III. THE RULING
[The Court DENIED the petition and upheld the validity and
constitutionality of E.O. No. 68.]
YES, E.O. No. 68 valid and constitutional.
Article 2 of our Constitution provides in its section 3, that –
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national
policy and adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the nation.
In accordance with the generally accepted principle of
international law of the present day including the Hague
Convention the Geneva Convention and significant precedents
of international jurisprudence established by the United Nation
all those person military or civilian who have been guilty of
planning preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the
commission of crimes and offenses consequential and
incidental thereto in violation of the laws and customs of war,
of humanity and civilization are held accountable therefor.
Consequently in the promulgation and enforcement of
Execution Order No. 68 the President of the Philippines has
acted in conformity with the generally accepted and policies of
international law which are part of the our Constitution.
Petitioner argues that respondent Military Commission has no
jurisdiction to try petitioner for acts committed in violation of
the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention because the
Philippines is not a signatory to the first and signed the second
MODULE 1 PIL CASES
only in 1947. It cannot be denied that the rules and regulation
of the Hague and Geneva conventions form, part of and are
wholly based on the generally accepted principals of
international law. In facts these rules and principles were
accepted by the two belligerent nations the United State and
Japan who were signatories to the two Convention. Such rule
and principles therefore form part of the law of our nation even
if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions
embodying them for our Constitution has been deliberately
general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the
recognition of rule and principle of international law as
contained in treaties to which our government may have been
or shall be a signatory.