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

LANTION,Presiding
Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 25, and MARK B. JIMENEZ,
respondents.
G.R. No. 139465. January 18, 2000

Facts:
Secretary Of Justice Franklin Drilon, representing the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines, signed in Manila the extradition Treaty between the
Government of the Philippines and the Government of the U.S.A. The Philippine
Senate ratified the said Treaty.
On June 18, 1999 the Department of Justice received from the Department of
Foreign Affairs a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to
the U.S. The Grand Jury Indictment, the warrant for his arrest, and other supporting
documents for said extradition were attached along with the request. Charges
include: conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the US, attempt to evade or
defeat tax, fraud by wire, radio, or television, false statement or entries and election
contribution in name of another.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), through a designated panel proceeded with the
technical evaluation and assessment of the extradition treaty which they found
having matters needed to be addressed. Pending evaluation of the aforestated
extradition documents, Mark Jiminez through counsel, wrote a letter to Justice
Secretary requesting copies of the official extradition request from the U.S
Government and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he
shall have received copies of the requested papers but the petitioner denied the
request for the consistency of Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty stated in
Article 7 that the Philippine Government must present the interests of the United
States in any proceedings arising out of a request for extradition.
The Secretary of Justice denied request on the ff. grounds:

He found it premature to secure him copies prior to the completion of

the evaluation. At that point in time, the DOJ is in the process of evaluating
whether the procedures and requirements under the relevant law (PD 1069
Philippine Extradition Law) and treaty (RP-US Extradition Treaty) have been
complied with by the Requesting Government. Evaluation by the DOJ of the
documents is not a preliminary investigation like in criminal cases making the
constitutionally guaranteed rights of the accused in criminal prosecution
inapplicable.

The U.S. requested for the prevention of unauthorized disclosure of the

information in the documents.

Finally, country is bound to Vienna convention on law of treaties such

that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties.

The respondent filed for petition of mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition.

The RTC of NCR ruled in favor of the respondent. Secretary of Justice was made to
issue a copy of the requested papers, as well as conducting further proceedings.
Issues:

Whether or not private respondent entitled to the two basic due

process rights of notice and hearing.

Whether or not this entitlement constitutes a breach of the legal

commitments and obligation of the Philippine Government under the RP-US
Treaty?

WON theres any conflict between private respondents basic due

process rights & provisions of RP-US Extradition treaty
Held:
1. Yes. Section 2(a) of PD 1086 defines extradition as the removal of an accused
from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign
authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in connection
with any criminal investigation directed against him in connection with any criminal
investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him
under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government. Although
the inquisitorial power exercised by the DOJ as an administrative agency due to the
failure of the DFA to comply lacks any judicial discretion, it primarily sets the wheels
for the extradition process which may ultimately result in the deprivation of the
liberty of the prospective extradite. This deprivation can be effected at two stages:
The provisional arrest of the prospective extradite pending the submission of the
request & the temporary arrest of the prospective extradite during the pendency of
the extradition petition in court.
Clearly, theres an impending threat to a prospective extraditees liberty as
early as during the evaluation stage. Because of such consequences, the evaluation
process is akin to an administrative agency conducting an investigative proceeding,
the consequences of which are essentially criminal since such technical assessment
sets off or commences the procedure for & ultimately the deprivation of liberty of a
prospective extradite.
In essence, therefore, the evaluation process partakes of the nature of a
criminal investigation. There are certain constitutional rights that are ordinarily
available only in criminal prosecution. But the Court has ruled in other cases that
where the investigation of an administrative proceeding may result in forfeiture of
life, liberty, or property, the administrative proceedings are deemed criminal or
penal, & such forfeiture partakes the nature of a penalty. In the case at bar, similar
to a preliminary investigation, the evaluation stage of the extradition proceedings
which may result in the filing of an information against the respondent, can possibly

lead to his arrest, & to the deprivation of his liberty. Thus, the extraditee must be
accorded due process rights of notice & hearing according to A3 S14(1) & (2), as
well as A3 S7the right of the people to information on matters of public concern &
the corollary right to access to official records & documents
The court held that the evaluation process partakes of the nature of a
criminal investigation, having consequences which will result in deprivation of
liberty of the prospective extradite. A favorable action in an extradition request
exposes a person to eventual extradition to a foreign country, thus exhibiting the
penal aspect of the process. The evaluation process itself is like a preliminary
investigation since both procedures may have the same result the arrest and
imprisonment of the respondent.
The basic rights of notice & hearing are applicable in criminal, civil &
administrative proceedings. Non-observance of these rights will invalidate the
proceedings. Individuals are entitled to be notified of any pending case affecting
their interests, & upon notice, may claim the right to appear therein & present their
side.
Rights to notice and hearing are dispensable in 3 cases:

When there is an urgent need for immediate action (preventive

suspension in administrative charges, padlocking filthy restaurants,
cancellation of passport).

Where there is tentativeness of administrative action & the respondent

isnt prevented from enjoying the right to notice & hearing at a later time
(summary distraint & levy of the property of a delinquent taxpayer,
replacement of an appointee)

Twin rights have been offered, but the right to exercise them had not
been claimed.

No. The U.S. and the Philippines share mutual concern about the suppression
and punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions. Both states accord
common due process protection to their respective citizens. The administrative
investigation doesnt fall under the three exceptions to the due process of notice
and hearing in the Sec. 3 Rules 112 of the Rules of Court.

No. Doctrine of incorporation under international law, as applied in most

countries, decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing with, but
are not superior to national legislative acts. Treaty can repeal statute and statute
can repeal treaty. No conflict. Veil of secrecy is lifted during trial. Request should
impose veil at any stage.