The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by
representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed
by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common
standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be
universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages.

Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of
mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear
and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and
oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the
dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social
progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of
universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this
pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a
common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society,
keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and
freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and
observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their
jurisdiction.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act
towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or
territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of
sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to
equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights
granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination
of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a
public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal
offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than
the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his
honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts
contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to
found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or
belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and
genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting
procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and
international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and
cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection
against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence
worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family,
including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock,
shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.
Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and
higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or
religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific
advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic
production of which he is the author.
Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be
fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law
solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just
requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity
or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Case Brief: Government of HongkongvsOlalia APRIL 2, 2019JEFF REY
G.R. No. 153675 April 19, 2007
GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, represented by the Philippine Department of
Justice, Petitioner,
vs. HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLALIA, JR. and JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ, Respondents.

Facts:
Private respondent Muñoz was charged before Hong Kong Court. Warrants of arrest were issued and by virtue of a
final decree the validity of the Order of Arrest was upheld. The petitioner Hong Kong Administrative Region filed a petition
for the extradition of the private respondent. In the same case, a petition for bail was filed by the private respondent.
The petition for bail was denied by reason that there was no Philippine law granting the same in extradition cases and
that the respondent was a high “flight risk”. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and was granted by the
respondent judge subject to the following conditions:
1. Bail is set at Php750,000.00 in cash with the condition that accused hereby undertakes that he will appear and
answer the issues raised in these proceedings and will at all times hold himself amenable to orders and processes of this
Court, will further appear for judgment. If accused fails in this undertaking, the cash bond will be forfeited in favor of the
government;
2. Accused must surrender his valid passport to this Court;
3. The Department of Justice is given immediate notice and discretion of filing its own motion for hold departure
order before this Court even in extradition proceeding; and
4. Accused is required to report to the government prosecutors handling this case or if they so desire to the nearest
office, at any time and day of the week; and if they further desire, manifest before this Court to require that all the assets of
accused, real and personal, be filed with this Court soonest, with the condition that if the accused flees from his undertaking,
said assets be forfeited in favor of the government and that the corresponding lien/annotation be noted therein accordingly.
Petitioner filed a motion to vacate the said order but was denied by the respondent judge. Hence, this instant petition.

Issue: Whether or not a potential extraditee is entitled to post bail

Ruling: A potential extraditee is entitled to bail.

Petitioner alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
in admitting private respondent to bail; that there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential
extraditee has a right to bail, the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings.
On the other hand, private respondent maintained that the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to
a prospective extraditee; and that extradition is a harsh process resulting in a prolonged deprivation of one’s liberty.
In this case, the Court reviewed what was held in Government of United States of America v. Hon. Guillermo G.
Purganan, Presiding Judge, RTC of Manila, Branch 42, and Mark B. Jimenez, a.k.a. Mario BatacanCrespo GR No. 153675
April 2007, that the constitutional provision on bail does not apply to extradition proceedings, the same being available only
in criminal proceedings. The Court took cognizance of the following trends in international law:
(1) the growing importance of the individual person in public international;
(2) the higher value now being given to human rights;
(3) the corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations;
and
(4) 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.

In light of the recent developments in international law, where emphasis is given to the worth of the individual and the
sanctity of human rights, the Court departed from the ruling in Purganan, and held that an extraditee may be allowed to post
bail.
G.R. No. 180906
October 7, 2008

Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff of Armed Forces of the Philippines; Petitioners
Vs.
RAYMOND MANALO and REYNALDO MANALO;
Respondents

FACTS:
The brothers Raymond and Reynald Manalo, farmers from Bulacan were abducted, detained in various locations, tortured by
Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) on the suspicion that they were members and supporters of the New
People’s Army (NPA). After eighteen (18) months of restrained liberty, torture, and other dehumanizing acts, were able to
escape. Ten days after their escape, they filed a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order before
the Supreme Court to prevent military officers and agents from depriving them of their right to liberty and other basic rights.
Existing petition was treated as Amparo petition. The Supreme Court granted the Writ of Amparo and ordered the Court of
Appeals to conduct the summary hearing and decide the petition.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not statements from the victims is sufficient for amparo petitions.
2. Whether or not actual deprivation of liberty is necessary to invoke the right to security of a person

RULING:
1. Yes. Much of the information and evidence of the ordeal will come from the victims themselves, and the veracity of their
account will depend on their credibility and candidness in their written and oral statements. Their statements can be
corroborated by other evidence such as physical evidence left by the torture they suffered or landmarks they can identify in
the places where they were detained.
2. Yes. Covered by the privilege of the writ, respondents must meet the threshold requirement that their right to life, liberty
and security is violated or threatened with an unlawful act or omission. The right to security of person is “freedom from fear.”
In The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that “a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of
speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.”
Moreover, the right to security of person is a guarantee of protection of one’s rights by the government. As the government is
the chief guarantor of order and security, the Constitutional guarantee of the rights to life, liberty and security of person is
rendered ineffective if government does not afford protection to these rights especially when they are under threat.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan
Krisha Therese
Krisha Therese
Oct 27·6 min read

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, MAJOR GENERAL JOSEPHUS Q. RAMAS and
ELIZABETH DIMAANO, respondents.
G.R. №104768, July 21, 2003
____________________________________________________________
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed a petition for forfeiture under RA 1379 against
Ramas.
Facts
Upon assumption to office following the EDSA Revolution, President Corazon C. Aquino issued EO №1 creating the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).
EO №1 tasked PCGG to recover all ill-gotten wealth of former President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives,
subordinates and close associates.
Through Chairman Jovito R. Salonga, PCGG created an Anti-Graft Board (AFP Board) tasked to investigate reports
of unexplained wealth and corrupt practices by AFP personnel, whether in the active service or retired.
The AFP Board investigated various reports of alleged unexplained wealth of respondent Major General Josephus Q. Ramas,
and issued a Resolution on its findings and recommendations on his unexplained wealth.
Evidence in the record showed that respondent is the owner of a house and lot located in Quezon City which value may be
estimated modestly at P 700,000.00, and also a house and lot in Cebu City.
The raiding team confiscated some equipment/items and communication facilities found in the premises of Elizabeth
Dimaano, and money in the amount of P2,870,000, and $ 50,000 in the house of Elizabeth Dimaano.
The said items and facilities could not be in her possession if not given for her use by the Commanding General of the
Philippine Army, Josephus Ramas.
The said money was never declared in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of respondent. There was an intention
to cover the existence of these money because these are all ill-gotten and unexplained wealth.
The Statement of Assets and Liabilities of Ramas were submitted for scrutiny and analysis by the Board consultant. Although
the amount of P2.87 million and $ 50,000 were not included, still it was disclosed that respondent has unexplained wealth of
P104,134.60.
The Board finds that a prima facie (sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted)
case exists against respondents for ill-gotten and unexplained wealth in the amount of P 2,974,134.00 and $ 50,000.
It was recommended that Maj. Gen. Ramas be prosecuted and tried for violation of RA 3019, as amended, otherwise known
as “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act”, and RA 1379, as amended, otherwise known as “The Act for the Forfeiture of
Unlawfully Acquired Property.”
Thus, the PCGG filed a petition for forfeiture under RA 1379 against Ramas.
General Francisco I. Chavez filed an Amended Complaint naming the Republic of the Philippines (“petitioner”),
represented by the PCGG as plaintiff, and Ramas as defendant. The Amended Complaint impleaded Elizabeth Dimaano as
co-defendant.
The Amended Complaint alleged that :
Ramas was the Commanding General of the Philippine Army until 1986.
Dimaano was a confidential agent of the Military Security Unit who was assigned as a clerk-typist at the office of
Ramas.
Ramas acquired funds, assets and properties manifestly out of proportion to his salary as an army officer and his
other income from legitimately acquired property by taking undue advantage of his public office and/or using his power,
authority and influence as such officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and as a subordinate and close associate of the
deposed President Ferdinand Marcos.
 The AFP Board found reasonable ground to believe that respondents have violated RA №1379
The Amended Complaint prayed for the forfeiture of respondents’ properties, funds and equipment in favor of the State.
Ramas filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint, and contended that his property consisted only of a residential
house at Quezon City valued at P700,000 which was not out of proportion to his salary and other legitimate income. He
denied ownership of any mansion in Cebu City, and the cash, communications equipment and other items confiscated from
the house of Dimaano.
Dimaano filed her own Answer to the Amended Complaint, admitting her employment as a clerk-typist in the office
of Ramas from January-November 1978 only, and claimed ownership of the monies, communications and equipment, jewelry
and land titles taken from her house by the Philippine Constabulary raiding team.
The Sandiganbayan noted that petitioner has already delayed the case for over a year because of its postponements. And
during the trial on March 1990, the petitioner again admitted its inability to present further evidence. The Sandigannbayan
reset the trial to May 1990 and warned the petitioner that failure to act would constrain the court to take drastic action.
Private respondents Ramas and Dimaano then filed their motion to dismiss based on Republic v. Migrino, in which the court
held in Migrino that the PCGG does not have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute military officers by reason of mere
position held without showing that they are “subordinates” of former President Marcos.
The judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the Amended Complaint. Counterclaims are likewise dismissed for lack of merit,
but the confiscated sum of money, communications equipment. jewelry and land titles are ordered returned to Elizabeth
Dimaano.
The records of this case are hereby amended and referred to the Hon. Ombudsman, who has primary jurisdiction over
the forfeiture cases under RA №1379. This case is also referred to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue for a
determination of any tax liability of respondent Elizabeth Dimaano. SO ORDERED.
The petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by tehSandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan dismissed the Amended Complaint on the following grounds:
The actions taken by the PCGG are not in accordance with the rulings of the Supreme Court in Cruz, Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan and Republic v. Migrino which involve the same issues.
No previous inquiry similar to preliminary investigations in criminal cases was conducted against Ramas and
Dimaano.
The evidence adduced against Ramas does not constitute a prima facie case against him.
There was an illegal search and seizure of the items confiscated.

Issues
Whether or not PCGG has jurisdiction to investigate private respondents
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the case before completion of the presentation of petitioner’s
evidence
Whether or not the search and seizure legal
Ruling
PCGG has no such jurisdiction. The PCGG, through the AFP Board, can only investigate the unexplained wealth and
corrupt policies of AFP personnel who fall under either of the two categories mentioned in Section 2 of EO №1.
SEC. 2. The Commission shall be charged with the task of assisting the President in regard to the following matters:
(a) The recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate
family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the takeover and
sequestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them, during his administration, directly or
through nominees, by taking undue advantage of their public office and/ or using their powers, authority, influence,
connections or relationship.
(b) The investigation of such cases of graft and corruption as the President may assign to the Commission from time
to time.
Rama’s case should fall under the first category of AFP personnel before the PCGG could exercise its jurisdiction over him.
2. The Court disagreed that the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the case before completion of the presentation of
petitioner’s evidence. The Sandiganbayan gave petitioner more than sufficient time to finish the presentation of its evidence.
The Sandiganbayan overlooked petitioner’s delays and yet petitioner ended the long-string of delays with the filing of
a Re-Amended Complaint, which would only prolong even more the disposition of the case.
Moreover, the pronouncements of the Court in Migrino and Cruz prompted the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the case
since the PCGG has no jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute the case against private respondents. This alone would have
been sufficient legal basis for the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the forfeiture case against private respondents.
Thus, we hold that the Sandiganbayan did not err in dismissing the case before completion of the presentation of
petitioner’s evidence.

3. Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan erred in declaring the properties confiscated from Dimaano’s house as illegally
seized and therefore inadmissible in evidence. Petitioner wants the Court to take judicial notice that the raiding team
conducted the search and seizure “on March 3, 1986 or five days after the successful EDSA revolution.” Petitioner argues
that a revolutionary government was operative at that time by virtue of Proclamation №1 announcing that President Aquino
and Vice President Laurel were “taking power in the name and by the will of the Filipino people.” Petitioner asserts that the
revolutionary government effectively withheld the operation of the 1973 Constitution which guaranteed private respondents’
exclusionary right.
Moreover, petitioner argues that the exclusionary right arising from an illegal search applies only beginning 2
February 1987, the date of ratification of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner contends that all rights under the Bill of Rights had
already reverted to its embryonic stage at the time of the search. Therefore, the government may confiscate the monies and
items taken from Dimaano and use the same in evidence against her since at the time of their seizure, private respondents did
not enjoy any constitutional right.
The Court finds that Petitioner is partly right in its arguments.

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE V. LANTION GR 139465, 17 October 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,
l 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);
l 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;
l 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 petitionersfavorable
action on the extradition request and the deprivation of private respondents liberty is easily comprehensible.

We have ruled time and again that this Courts 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.