Sec. of Justice v.
Judge Lantion  If no: would call an immediate lifting of the TRO> thus allowing SOJ to fats-
FACTS: Pres. Marcos issed PD 1069 > “Procedure for Extradition of Person who have
committed Crimes in a Foreign Country
 Founded:
o Doctrine of Incorporation
o Concern> suppression of crime both in state where it was committed
and state where the criminal may have escaped
o Extradition treaty with Indonesia , the intention of the Philippines to
enter into similar treaties with other interested countries
SOJ DRilon siged the Extradition treaty between PH and US. The Senate ratified
the same.
Then DOJ received a DFA US requestion> extradition of respondent Mark
Jimenez to the US. Attached therein is a warrant of arrest by US court. He was charged
with fraud, tax evasion, etc.
Sec. Drilon designated a panel to act on the matter> "technical evaluation and
assessment" of the extradition request and the documents in support thereof.
Pending the evaluation, JIminez requested for copies of the extradition request.
He was denied by Sec. Drilon, for following reasons:
 1. PREMATURE: to furnish copies of request and supporting doc> ending
evaluation; and article 7 of the extradition treaty enumerates the doc.
Requirements and procedure under wchi the doc shall be admitted as evidence
o Evaluation of DOJ > is not a preliminary investigation> merely
determine WON the procedure and requirements have been complied.
o Only after the filing of the petition for extradition in court> person be
furnished with copies
 2. FORMAL REQUEST CONTAIN GRAN JURY INFO COERED BY SECRECY RULES
UNDER US LAW
 3. THE DOJ: NOT IN THE POSITION TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE PROCEEDINGS ON
EXTRADITION REQUEST
o Under Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties: "[E]very treaty in force is
binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good
faith".
o Extradition is a tool of criminal law enforcement and to be effective,
requests for extradition or surrender of accused or convicted persons
must be processed expeditiously
THEREFORE, JIMINEZ FILED WITH THE RTC > MANDAMUS: TO COMPEL THE SOJ TO
FURNISH THE EXTRADITION DOCUMENTS AND GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
COMMENT/OPPOSE
 Judge Lantion: order the SOJ to refrain from conducting proceedings
ISSUE: WON
Question: 1. During the Evaluation Stage> is JIMINEZ entitled to due process of
notice and hearing
 If yes: then the proceeding at the trial court> moot and academic
tract the process leading to the filing of extradition petition to the proper
RTC
2. IF jiminez is adjudged entitled to due process rights at evaluation stage>
would that constitute a breach of obligation of PH under the RP-US Treaty
 Assuming it is breach: is there any conflict between Jiminez rights of due
process and provision of the RP-US extradition treaty
HELD: NO> NOT ENTITLED OF RIGHT TO NOTICE AND HEARING DURING THE
EVALUATION STAGE OF EXTR
UNDER THE TREATY
 Extradition REQUEST
o Made by foreign diplomat
o Accompanied y criminal charge, other supporting doc.
o Eexec. AUtority must ascertain> won the request is supported by
documents and evidence
 E. PETITION
o If all are sufficient> Sec. of Foreign Affairs> deliver to SOJ
o SOJ designates a lawyer> who would file a petition to RTC of province
or city
o Judge shall issue an order summoning the prospective extradite and to
answer
o Judge may issue a warrant of arrest
 E. HEARING
o Extradition law> not specify> proceeding is civil, criminal or special
proceeding
o Nevertheless, summary procedure shall apply
o Upon conclusion, Court shall grant extradition or dismiss> final and
immediately executory
o ROC appeal in crim cases shall apply
o trial court determines whether or not the offense mentioned in the
petition is extraditable
NATURE OF THE ROLE OF DOJ IN EVALUATION STAGE
 Extradition law: Only SOJ to file the case after the papers are forwarded by SoFA
 SoFA is the one authorized to evaluate the extradition papers> assure sufficiency
 CASE AT BAR: THER WAS A FAILURE TO ABIDE BY SUCH PROVISON
o While it is true: the request was delivered to DFA, the following day the
DOJ already received the request
o Apparently without DFA discharging its duty to throuroughly evaluate
the request
o it was DOJ who determined the completeness and evaluated the the
same
 EVALUATIO PROCESS: sui geenris
o Not crim investigation
o Not also a purely ministerial function
 o BECAUSE IT INVOLVES TECHNICAL ASSEMENT> complete, not
politically motivated
o It is inquisitorial > determinative powers of an administrative body
which better enables it to exercise its quasi-judicial authority
 allows the administrative body to inspect the records and
premises, and investigate the activities, of persons or entities
coming under its jurisdiction or to require disclosure of
information by means of accounts, records, reports,
testimony of witnesses, production of documents, or
otherwise
ARGUMENT: IMMENENT THREAT TO PROSPECTIVE EXTRADITEE LEIBERTY AS EARLY
AS THE EVAL STAGE
 DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY
 In essence, therefore, the evaluation process partakes of the nature of a criminal
investigation.
 FAVORABKE ACTION IN an extradition request exposes a person to eventual
extradition to a foreign country, thus saliently exhibiting the criminal or penal
aspect of the process
o . In this sense, the evaluation procedure is akin to a preliminary
investigation since both procedures may have the same result the
arrest and imprisonment of the respondent or the person charged
 In the evaluation process, a provisional arrest is even allowed by the Treaty and
the Extradition Law
NOT WELL-TAKEN: EXTRADITION TREATY IS NEITHER A PIECE OF CRIMINAL
LEGISLATTION NOR CIINAL PROCEDURE IN WRIGHT
 Wright involves ex post facto law> It had nothing to do with the denial of the right
to notice, information, and hearing
DUE PROCESS
 SUBSTANTIVE> intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the
person to his life, liberty, or property
 PROCEDURAL > notice and hearing
o Also applies to admin proceeding
o Non-observance of these rights will invalidate the proceedings
AMERCAIN EXRADITION PROCEEDING
 FURNISHED A COPY> BASIC RIGHT> MANDATORY:
o A statutory provision requiring duplicate copies of the indictment,
information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction or sentence and
other instruments accompanying the demand or requisitions be
furnished and delivered to the fugitive or his attorney is directory.
However, the right being such a basic one has been held to be a right
mandatory on demand
THE COURT AGREES WITH RESPONDENT JIMINEZ CITING AM JURISPRUDENCE
 “Constitution recognizes higher values than speed and efficiency > due process
were designed to protect the fragile values of a vulnerable citizenry from the
overbearing concern for efficiency and efficacy that may characterize
praiseworthy government officials no less,
 PH CONTEXT: rights of the individual are concerned, the end does not justify the
means. It is not enough that there be a valid objective; it is also necessary that
the means employed to pursue it be in keeping with the Constitution

THE NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS CANNOT BE DISPENSED
WITH
 Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall
be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining
to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data
used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law
 BUT SOJ CONTENDS: the documents are not a matter of public concern
 On the other hand> if the person invoking the right is the one directly affected
thereby, his right to information becomes absolute
 When the individual himself is involved in official government action
because said action has a direct bearing on his life> he actually invokes the
basic right to be notified under Section 1 of the Bill of Rights and not exactly
the right to information on matters of public concern
o The right to information is implemented by the right of access to
information within the control of the government
 CASE AT BAR: papers requested by JIminez pertain to official government action
from the U. S. Government.
o No official action from our country has yet been taken
o During the evaluation procedure, no official governmental action of our
own government has as yet been done
o hence the invocation of the right is PREMATURE
 If it is on the hearing stage= public concern> PH government have already
made an official decision> allowed
IS THE ENTITLEMENT OF RIGHT OF NOTICE AND HEARING CONSTITUTE A BREACH
OF PH GOV TO THE RTREATY
Doctrine of Incporation
 First harmonize
 In case of conflict> irreconcilable> jurisprudence dictates that municipal law
should be upheld by the municipal courts
 decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing with, but are not
superior to, national legislative enactments
 principle lex posterior derogat priori takes effect a treaty may repeal a statute
and a statute may repeal a treaty
CASE AT BAR: THERE IS NO OCCASION TO CHOOSE BETWEEN IL AND MNICIPAL LAW
  The court see a void in the provision if the R-US extradition treaty> as
regards the basic due process rights of a prospective extraditee at the
evaluation stage
 From the determination of the court: right to notice and hearing should be
afforded
o However, prior thereto, the law is silent as to these rights. Reference
to the U.S. extradition procedures also manifests this silence.
 SIlents does not mean unavailable
COURT: In the absence of a law or principle of law, we must apply the rules of fair play.
 Application of basic twin due process rights of notice and earing will not go
against the treaty
 Nietehr the treaty nor the extradition preclude these rights from the
prospective extradite

The basic principles of administrative law instruct us that "the essence of due process in
administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to
seek reconsideration
 This Court will not tolerate the least disregard of constitutional guarantees in
the enforcement of a law or treaty.