SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, petitioner, vs. HON. RALPH C.

LANTION, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court

of Manila, Branch 25, and MARK B. JIMENEZ, respondents.
(Decided January 18, 2000)

FACTS:
An extradition document was requested by private respondent Jimenez, through counsel, which was
denied by the Secretary of Justice on the ground of prematurity because the Justice department is still
undergoing investigation and hence, no constitutional right of notice and hearing is available for such
matter. By due course, the counsel filed a petition for mandamus to the Regional Trial Court to compel
the department to produce the extradition treaty for the purposes of having time to answer the
allegations that were thrown against his client by the United States. A temporary restraining order was
issued by the Supreme Court to the RTC judge for such a compelling decision.

ISSUE:

Whether such documents requested can be availed by the private respondent?

HELD:

Yes
The constitutional issue in the case at bar does not even call for "justice outside legality," since private
respondent's 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.

When there is a conflict between the treaty, the domestic law, and the constitution, the latter prevails.

It was noted that the duty of the Department of Foreign Affairs was not followed for the evaluation of
the extradition document sent to them as to whether the said document does manifests political or
military aid gain or matters which a due process proceeding, The power vested to the Secretary of
Justice is to investigate and to find out whether there is a probable cause by which the private
respondent needs to be heard.

Petition dismissed and required the justice department to issue the extradition documents as to the
private respondent.