SECRETARY OF JUSTICE V.

LANTION

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 petitioners favorable 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.
 Tanada v. Angara
Facts
On April 15, 1994, the Philippine Government represented by its Secretary of the Department of
Trade and Industry signed the Final Act binding the Philippine Government to submit to its
respective competent authorities the WTO (World Trade Organization) Agreements to seek
approval for such. On December 14, 1994, Resolution No. 97 was adopted by the Philippine
Senate to ratify the WTO Agreement.
This is a petition assailing the constitutionality of the WTO agreement as it violates Sec 19, Article
II, providing for the development of a self reliant and independent national economy, and
Sections 10 and 12, Article XII, providing for the “Filipino first” policy.

Issue
Whether or not the Resolution No. 97 ratifying the WTO Agreement is unconstitutional

Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled the Resolution No. 97 is not unconstitutional. While the constitution
mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it
recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality
and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino interests only against foreign competition and
trade practices that are unfair. In other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an
isolationalist policy. Furthermore, the constitutional policy of a “self-reliant and independent
national economy” does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods and
services. It contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor “mendicancy in the international
community.”
The Senate, after deliberation and voting, gave its consent to the WTO Agreement thereby
making it “a part of the law of the land”. The Supreme Court gave due respect to an equal
department in government. It presumes its actions as regular and done in good faith unless there
is convincing proof and persuasive agreements to the contrary. As a result, the ratification of the
WTO Agreement limits or restricts the absoluteness of sovereignty. A treaty engagement is not a
mere obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties. A state which has
contracted valid international obligations is bound to make its legislations such modifications as
may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken.
Ichong v. Hernandez,
Facts:

RA 1180 – An Act to Regulate the Retail Business was enacted to nationalize the retail
trade business in the Philippines. The law prohibits persons not citizens of the Philippines, and
against associations, partnerships, or corporations the capital of which are not wholly owned by
citizens of the Philippines, from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade and other
prohibitions and regulations.

Petitioner attacks the constitutionality of the Act, contending that it denies to alien
residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives of their liberty and property without
due process of law. SolGen content that the Act was passed in the valid exercise of the police
power of the State, which exercise is authorized in the Constitution in the interest of national
economic survival.
Issue:
Whether or not the Act is unconstitutional because it denies alien residents the equal
protection of the laws.
Held:
No.
The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or class
privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality. It is not intended to
prohibit legislation, which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by territory
within which is to operate. It does not demand absolute equality among residents; it merely
requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as
to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. The equal protection clause is not infringed by
legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike
to all persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exists for making a distinction between
those who fall within such class and those who do not.

The classification is actual, real and reasonable, and all persons of one class are treated
alike, and as it cannot be said that the classification is patently unreasonable and unfounded, it
is in duty bound to declare that the legislature acted within its legitimate prerogative and it can
not declare that the act transcends the limit of equal protection established by the
Constitution.
 Bayan vs. Zamora

Fact:
In view of the impending expiration of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement in 1991, the
Philippines and the United States negotiated for a possible extension of the military bases
agreement. On September 16, 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected the proposed RP-US Treaty
of Friendship, Cooperation and Security which, in effect, would have extended the presence of
US military bases in the Philippines.

On July 18, 1997, the United States panel met with the Philippine panel to exchange notes on the
complementing strategic interests of the United States and the Philippines in the Asia-Pacific
region.” Both sides discussed, among other things, the possible elements of the Visiting Forces
Agreement (VFA for brevity).

On October 5, 1998, President Joseph E. Estrada, through respondent Secretary of Foreign

Affairs, ratified the VFA.

Petitioners went to the Supreme Court to question the validity of the VFA as it allege the
following:

Issue:
Whether the VFA constitute an abdication of Philippine sovereignty and deprived Philippine
courts of their jurisdiction to hear and try offenses committed by US military personnel?

Held:
No, the VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United States troops and personnel
visiting the Philippines. It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of military personnel,
and further defines the rights of the United States and the Philippine government in the matter
of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation of
equipment, materials and supplies. Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over United
States personnel with respect to offenses committed within the Philippines and punishable under
the law of the Philippines.
 Case Digest: Republic vs Sandiganbayan

ISSUE: Whether or not the Swiss funds can be forfeited in favour of the Republic, on the basis of
the Marcoses’s lawful income.

FACTS: Petitioner Republic, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG),
represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition for forfeiture before the
Sandiganbayan. Petitioner sought the declaration of the aggregate amount of US$356 million
(now estimated to be more than US$658 million inclusive of interest) deposited in escrow in the
PNB, as ill-gotten wealth. The funds were previously held by the following five account groups,
using various foreign foundations in certain Swiss banks. Moreover, the petition sought the
forfeiture of US$25 million and US$5 million in treasury notes which exceeded the Marcos
couple's salaries, other lawful income as well as income from legitimately acquired property. The
treasury notes are frozen at the Central Bank of the Philippines, now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,
by virtue of the freeze order issued by the PCGG. Before the case was set for pre-trial, a General
Agreement and the Supplemental Agreements were executed by the Marcos children and then
PCGG Chairman Magtanggol Gunigundo for a global settlement of the assets of the Marcos family
to identify, collate, cause the inventory of and distribute all assets presumed to be owned by the
Marcos family under their conditions contained therein.

DECISION: Granted

RATIO DECIDENDI: Yes. Their only known lawful income of $304,372.43 can therefore legally
and fairly serve as basis for determining the existence of a prima facie case of forfeiture of the
Swiss funds. The sum of $304,372.43 should be held as the only known lawful income of
respondents since they did not file any Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL), as required by
law, from which their net worth could be determined. Besides, under the 1935 Constitution,
Ferdinand E. Marcos as President could not receive "any other emolument from the Government
or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities." Likewise, under the 1973 Constitution,
Ferdinand E. Marcos as President could "not receive during his tenure any other emolument from
the Government or any other source." In fact, his management of businesses, like the
administration of foundations to accumulate funds, was expressly prohibited under the 1973
Constitution.