DOJ secretary vs.

Lantion
Due Process
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
governments 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.

TANADA v. ANGARA
October 26, 2012 Leave a comment

272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997

Facts :
This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization
(WTO) Agreement. Petitioners question the concurrence of herein respondents acting in their capacities as
Senators via signing the said agreement.

The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners, through the
reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new
opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and more investment in
the country. These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory
Senators, a free market espoused by WTO.

Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one that limits, restricts and impair
Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative power. That the Filipino First policy of the Constitution
was taken for granted as it gives foreign trading intervention.

Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the said WTO agreement.

Held:
In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality,
justice, freedom, cooperation and amity , with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is
bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered automatically part of

our own laws. Pacta sunt servanda international agreements must be performed in good faith. A treaty is
not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties.
Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as absolute because it
is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. Such as when Philippines joined the United
Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty right under the concept of sovereignty as
autolimitation. What Senate did was a valid exercise of authority. As to determine whether such exercise
is wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. The act of signing the said
agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO allows withdrawal of membership should this be the
political desire of a member. Also, it should not be viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO
remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development
of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the
people be allowed, through their duly elected officers, make their free choice.
Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.