G.R. No.

139465

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
vs.
HON. RALPH C. LANTION

Facts:

Petitioner, Secretary of Justice filed a urgent motion for reconsideration assailing

the decision of the court on January 18, 2000, by a vote of 9-6 that dismissed the
petition as it failed to prove multiple facts and substances such as:

I. There is a substantial difference between an evaluation process antecedent to

the filing of an extradition petition in court and a preliminary investigation.

II. Absence of notice and hearing during the evaluation process will not result in a
denial of fundamental fairness.

III. In the evaluation process, instituting a notice and hearing requirement

satisfies no higher objective.

IV. The deliberate omission of the notice and hearing requirement in the
Philippine Extradition Law is intended to prevent flight.

V. There is a need to balance the interest between the discretionary powers of

government and the rights of an individual.

VI. The instances cited in the assailed majority decision when the twin rights of
notice and hearing may be dispensed with in this case results in a non
sequitur conclusion.

VII. Jimenez is not placed in imminent danger of arrest by the Executive Branch
necessitating notice and hearing.

VIII. By instituting a 'proceeding' not contemplated by PD No. 1069, the Supreme

Court has encroached upon the constitutional boundaries separating it from the
other two co-equal branches of government.

IX. Bail is not a matter of right in proceedings leading to extradition or in

extradition proceedings

In response private respondent Mark B. Jimenez filed a comment opposing the

motion. Petitioner then filed an Urgent Motion to Allow Continuation and
Maintenance of Action and Filing of Reply. Thereafter, filed a Manifestation with
the attached Note 327/00 from the Embassy of Canada and Note No. 34 from the
Security Bureau of the Hongkong SAR Government Secretariat.

August 15, 2000, Private respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion for Leave
to File Rejoinder in the event that petitioner's April 5, 2000 Motion would be
granted. Private respondent also filed a Motion to Expunge from the records
petitioner's June 7, 2000 Manifestation with its attached note verbales. Only the
Motion to Allow Continuation and Maintenance of Action however was a granted
and all others were denied.

Pending evaluation of the extradition documents by the DOJ, private respondent

requested for copies of the official extradition request and all pertinent
documents and the holding in abeyance of the proceedings. When his request
was denied for being premature, private respondent resorted to an action
for mandamus, certiorari and prohibition. The trial court issued an order
maintaining and enjoining the DOJ from conducting further proceedings, hence,
this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the International Law or treaty supersedes the Municipal law or
the Constitution on the rights of the respondent to a hearing and notice

Ruling:

NO. Under the doctrine of incorporation, rules of international law form part
of the law of the land and no further legislative action is needed to make
such rules applicable in the domestic sphere.

The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals (or local

courts) are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict
between a rule of international law and the provisions of the  
constitution or statute of the local state. In a situation, however, where the
conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of
international law and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law
should be upheld by the municipal courts (Ichong vs. Hernandez,  101 Phil.
1155 [1957]; Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230 [1963]; In re: Garcia, 2
SCRA 984 [1961]) for the reason that such courts are organs of municipal
law and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances . The doctrine
ofincorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules of
international law are given equal standing with, but are not superior to,
national legislative enactments.

Accordingly, the principle lex posterior derogat priori takes effect — a treaty

may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. In states where the 
constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines,
both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the 
constitution 

we see a void in the provisions of the RP-US Extradition Treaty, as implemented

by Presidential Decree No. 1069, as regards the basic due process rights of a
prospective extraditee at the evaluation stage of extradition proceedings. From
the procedures earlier abstracted, after the filing of the extradition petition and
during the judicial determination of the propriety of extradition, the rights of
notice and hearing are clearly granted to the prospective extraditee.This
Court will not tolerate the least disregard of constitutional guarantees in
the enforcement of a law or treaty.