Case Digest: Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465 (Jan. 18, 2000)

Due Process Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, GR 139465 (Jan. 18, 2000) FACTS: Department of Justice (DOJ) received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S. a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the U.S. for violation of Conspiracy to Commit Offense, Attempt to Evade Tax, Fraud by Wire, Radio, or Television, False Statement, and Election Contribution in Name of Another. During the evaluation process of the extradition, the private respondent, requested the petitioner, Secretary of Justice, to furnish him copies of the extradition request from the U.S. government, that he be given ample time to comment regarding the extradition request against him after he shall have received copies of the requested papers, and to suspend the proceeding in the meantime. The petitioner, Secretary of Justice denied the request in consistent with Art. 7 of the RP – US Extradition Treaty which provides that the Philippine Government must represent the interests of the U.S. in any proceedings arising from an extradition request. The private respondent filed with the RTC against the petitioner Hon. Ralph Lantion (presiding judge RTC Manila Branch 25) a mandamus, a certiorari, and a prohibition to enjoin the petitioner, the Secretary of DFA, and NBI from performing any acts directed to the extradition of the respondent, for it will be a deprivation of his rights to due process of notice and hearing. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Mark Jimenez is entitled to the basic rights of due process over the government’s duties under a treaty? RULING: Yes. According to the principle of “Pacta Sunt Servanda”, parties to a treaty should keep their agreements to good faith. However, Sec. 2 of Art. 2 of the Constitution (incorporation clause) provides that the Philippines “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land”. Incorporation clause is applied when there is a conflict between the international law and local/municipal law. However, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the municipal court. The fact that the international law has been made part of the law of the land does not imply the primacy of international law over national or municipal law in the municipal sphere. Rules of international law are given an equal standing with, but not superior to, the national legislative enactment. The principle of “Lex Posterior Derogat Priori” clarifies that a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. And the Republic of the Philippines considers its Constitution as the highest law of the land, therefore, both statutes and treaty may be invalidated if they are conflict with the constitution.