Secretary of Justice Vs Lantion

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
VS.
HON. RALPH C. LANTION,
PRESIDING JUDGE AND
MARK B. JIMENEZ
G.R. No. 139465, October 17, 2000
FACTS:
January 18, 2000 - by a vote of 9-6, COURT

dismissed the petition at bar and ordered the
petitioner to furnish private respondent copies of the
extradition request and its supporting papers and to
grant him a reasonable period within which to file his
comment with supporting evidence.
The jugularissueis whether or not the private

respondent is entitled to the due process right
to notice and hearing during the evaluation
stage of the extradition process.
FACTS:
Background of January 2000 case: RP-US

Extradition Treaty
extradition Treaty Between the Government of the
Philippines and the Government of the U.S.A. The
Philippine Senate ratified the said Treaty.
June 18, 1999 - Department of Justice received
from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S Note
Verbale No. 0522
request for the extradition of private respondent
Mark Jiminez to the United States.
FACTS:

Extradition Treaty
Mark Jiminez 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
FACTS:

Extradition Treaty
Petitioner(SJ) denied the request for the consistency of

Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty.
Article 7 - Philippine Government must present the
interests of the United States in any proceedings arising
out of a request for extradition.
Bottomline: SC granted the request of Jimenez.
FACTS:
WHO is MIKE JIMENEZ?

Mario Batacan Crespo
Mark Jimenez, the most controversial of President
Estradas friends, is a dealmaker par excellence.
Estrada has proclaimed him a corporate genius, a
compliment made all the more extraordinary by the
fact that it was bestowed just nine days after Jimenez
got indicted in April in a Florida court for tax evasion,
conspiracy, fraud and illegal campaign contributions.
FACTS:
WHO is MIKE JIMENEZ?

financial adviser at Malacanang
2001, Jimenez sought and won the congressional seat
of the 6th district ofManila
Co-authored Anti-Money Laundering Law
ISSUE:
Whether or not the

private respondent is
entitled to the due
process right to notice
and hearing during the
evaluation stage of the
extradition process.
ISSUE:
BALANCING OF POLE
National
commitment under
the RP-US Extradition
Treaty to expedite the
extradition to the
United States
Private respondents
claim to due process
(Section 1, Article III of
the Constitution)
RULING:
Was there a denial of due process?

JIMENEZ ARGUES:
he must be afforded the right to notice and hearing as

required by our Constitution
urgency of his right to notice and hearing considering the
alleged threat to his liberty (priceless than life)
RULING:
THERE WAS NO DENIAL OF DUE

PROCESS
HE is bereft of the right to notice and

hearing during theevaluation stageof
the extradition process
RULING:
THERE WAS NO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS:
GROUNDS
1. NO provisionin the RP-US Extradition Treaty
and in P.D. No. 1069 which gives an extraditee
the right
2. general interpretation of the issue in question
by other countries with similar treaties with the
Philippines
3. likening an extradition proceeding to a
criminal proceeding and the evaluation stage
RULING:
1.
NO provisionin the RP-US Extradition Treaty

and in P.D. No. 1069 which gives an extraditee
the right.
It is well-settled that a "court cannot alter,
amend, or add to a treaty by the insertion of
any clause, small or great, or dispense with any
of its conditions and requirements or take away
any qualification, or integral part of any
stipulation, upon any motion of equity, or
general convenience, or substantial justice.
RULING:
2.
general interpretation of the issue in question

by other countries with similar treaties with the
Philippines
Treaty enjoys presumption of regularity (careful

study and determination by exec-legis branch)
it is not an international practice to afford a

potential extraditee with a copy of the
extradition papers during the evaluation stage
of the extradition process.(US, Canada,
Hongkong)
RULING:
3.
likening an extradition proceeding to a

criminal proceeding and the evaluation stage
to a preliminary investigation.
An extradition proceeding issui generis. It is
NOT a criminal proceeding.
does not involve the determination of the
guilt or innocence of an accused
adjudged in the court of the state where he will
be extradited.
RULING:
As a rule: constitutional rights that are only relevant
to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot
be invoked by an extradite.
An extradition proceeding is not a criminal prosecution,
and the constitutional safeguards that accompany a
criminal trial in this country do not shield an accused from
extradition pursuant to a valid treaty. US vs Galanis
RULING:
extradition proceeding
criminal proceeding
NATURE
summary in nature
involve a full-blown trial.
EVIDENCE
REQUIRED
rules of evidence in an extradition

proceeding allow admission of
evidence under less stringent
standards - showing of the
existence of a prima facie case
against a fugitive.
quantum of evidence to be satisfied,

a criminal case requires proof
beyond reasonable doubt for
conviction
Judgment
our courts may adjudge an

individual extraditable but the
President has the final discretion to
extradite him
judgment becomes executory upon

being rendered final
RULING:
RULE: As an extradition proceeding is not criminal in
character and the evaluation stage in an extradition
proceeding is not akin to a preliminary
investigation, the due process safeguards in the
latter do not necessarily apply to the former.
ISSUE:
BALANCING OF POLE
National
commitment under
the RP-US Extradition
Treaty to expedite the
extradition to the
United States
Private respondents
claim to due process
(Section 1, Article III of
the Constitution)
RULING: SC FAVORED THE INTEREST OF

THE STATE
1.
2.
All treaties, including the RP-US

Extradition Treaty,should be
interpreted in light of their
intent.(Vienna Convention)
To deny easy refuge to a criminal whose
activities threaten the peace and progress
of civilized countries

THE STATE
1.
All treaties, including the RP-US Extradition

Treaty,should be interpreted in light of their
intent.(Vienna Convention)
suppressionofcrimeis the concern not only of the
state where it is committed but also of any other state
to which the criminal may have escaped
forge extradition treaties to arrest the dramatic rise of
international and transnational crimes
INTERPRET : minimize if not prevent the escape of
extraditees from the long arm of the law and expedite
their trial.

THE STATE
deny easy refuge to a criminal:

One manifest purpose of this trend towards globalization is
to deny easy refuge to a criminal whose activities threaten
the peace and progress of civilized countries.
2.
It is to the great interest of the Philippines to be part of this

irreversible movement in light of its vulnerability to crimes,
especially transnational crimes.

THE STATE
CLARIFICATIONS:
it is not ruling that the private respondent
has no right to due process at all
throughout the length and breadth of the
extrajudicial proceedings
Procedural due process requires a determination
of what process is due, when it is due, and the
degree of what is due.
WHY an extradite have NO RIGHT to
notice and hearing during the

evaluation stage?

THE STATE
two stages in extradition proceedings:

(1) the preliminary or evaluation stage - executive
authority of the requested state ascertains whether
the extradition request is supported by the
documents and information required under the
Extradition Treaty; and
(2) the extradition hearing/ proper - petition for
extradition is heard before a court of justice, which
determines whether the accused should be
extradited.

THE STATE
WHY an extradite have NO RIGHT to notice
and hearing during the evaluation

stage?
momentarily withheld during the
evaluation stageof the extradition process
more compelling interest of the State to
prevent escape of potential extraditees
which can be precipitated by
prematureinformation of the basis of the
request for his extradition.

THE STATE
P.D. No. 1069 (IRR of RP-US Extradition Treaty)
affords an extraditeesufficient opportunityto

meet the evidence against himonce the
petition is filed in court.
timefor the extraditee to know the basis of the
request for his extraditionis merely movedto
the filing in court of the formal petition for
extradition

THE STATE
The temporary holdon private respondent's

privilege of notice and hearing is
asoft restrainton his right to due process

It will not deprive him offundamental
fairnessshould he decide to resist the request
for his extradition to the United States.
There is no denial of due process as

long as fundamental fairness is
assured a party.

Secretary of Justice Vs Lantion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Secretary of Justice Vs 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

Secretary of Justice Vs Lantion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

January 18, 2000 - by a vote of 9-6, COURT

The jugularissueis whether or not the private

Background of January 2000 case: RP-US

Background of January 2000 case: RP-US

Background of January 2000 case: RP-US

Petitioner(SJ) denied the request for the consistency of

Bottomline: SC granted the request of Jimenez.

WHO is MIKE JIMENEZ?

WHO is MIKE JIMENEZ?

Whether or not the

Was there a denial of due process?

he must be afforded the right to notice and hearing as

THERE WAS NO DENIAL OF DUE

HE is bereft of the right to notice and

NO provisionin the RP-US Extradition Treaty

general interpretation of the issue in question

Treaty enjoys presumption of regularity (careful

it is not an international practice to afford a

likening an extradition proceeding to a

involve a full-blown trial.

rules of evidence in an extradition

quantum of evidence to be satisfied,

our courts may adjudge an

judgment becomes executory upon

RULING: SC FAVORED THE INTEREST OF

All treaties, including the RP-US

RULING: SC FAVORED THE INTEREST OF

All treaties, including the RP-US Extradition

RULING: SC FAVORED THE INTEREST OF

deny easy refuge to a criminal:

It is to the great interest of the Philippines to be part of this

RULING: SC FAVORED THE INTEREST OF

WHY an extradite have NO RIGHT to

notice and hearing during the

RULING: SC FAVORED THE INTEREST OF

two stages in extradition proceedings:

RULING: SC FAVORED THE INTEREST OF

WHY an extradite have NO RIGHT to notice

and hearing during the evaluation

RULING: SC FAVORED THE INTEREST OF

P.D. No. 1069 (IRR of RP-US Extradition Treaty)

affords an extraditeesufficient opportunityto

RULING: SC FAVORED THE INTEREST OF

The temporary holdon private respondent's

asoft restrainton his right to due process

There is no denial of due process as

You might also like