Pil-Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion

S U N D AY, J A N U A R Y 1 0 , 2 0 1 0
Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion 343 SCRA 377 (2000)

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. LANTION [322 SCRA 160 (2000)]
Nature: Petition for review of a decision of the Manila RTC
Facts: 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:
1. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the US
2. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
3. Fraud by wire, radio, or television
4. False statement or entries
5. 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. Respondent, then requested for
copies of all the documents included in the extradition request and for him to
be given ample time to assess it.
The Secretary of Justice denied request on the ff. grounds:
1. 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.
2. The U.S. requested for the prevention of unauthorized disclosure of the
information in the documents.
3. 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:
1. WON private is respondent entitled to the two basic due process rights of
notice and hearing
Yes. 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 14(1) & (2), as well as A3 7the
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: Dispensable in 3 cases:
a. When there is an urgent need for immediate action (preventive suspension in
administrative charges, padlocking filthy restaurants, cancellation of passport).
b. 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)
c. Twin rights have been offered, but the right to exercise them had not been
claimed.
2. WON this entitlement constitutes a breach of the legal commitments and
obligation of the Philippine Government under the RP-US Treaty?
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.
3. WON theres any conflict between private respondents basic due process
rights & provisions of RP-US Extradition treaty
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.
Judgment: Petition dismissed for lack of merit.
Kapunan, separate concurring opinion: While the evaluation process conducted
by the DOJ is not exactly a preliminary investigation of criminal cases, it is akin
to a preliminary investigation because it involves the basic constitutional rights
of the person sought to be extradited. A person ordered extradited is arrested,
forcibly taken from his house, separated from his family and delivered to a
foreign state. His rights of abode, to privacy, liberty and pursuit of happiness
are taken away from hima fate as harsh and cruel as a conviction of a
criminal offense. For this reason, he is entitled to have access to the evidence
against him and the right to controvert them.
Puno, dissenting: Case at bar does not involve guilt or innocence of an accused
but the interpretation of an extradition treaty where at stake is our
governments international obligation to surrender to a foreign state a citizen
of its own so he can be tried for an alleged offense committed within that
jurisdiction.
Panganiban, dissenting: Instant petition refers only to the evaluation stage.
P O S T E D B Y T H E C O M F O R T R O O M AT

Pil-Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pil-Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pil-Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S U N D AY, J A N U A R Y 1 0 , 2 0 1 0

Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion 343 SCRA 377 (2000)

extradite. In essence, therefore, the evaluation process partakes of the nature

distraint & levy of the property of a delinquent taxpayer, replacement of an

You might also like