Home » Constitutional Law 1 » Secretary of Justice vs Lantion

Going on a Trip?

Book Cheapest Room

! Categories
› Actual Case or Controversy
› Archipelagic Doctrine
› Bills must originate exclusively from Congress
› COMELEC
› Constittutional Commission
› Constitutional Law 1
› de facto government
› de jure government
› Declaration of Principles and State Policies
› Declaratory Relief
› Doctrine of Immunity from Suit
› Doctrine of Incorporation
› Doctrine of Non-suability
› Doctrine of Parens Patria
› Due Process Clause
› Equal Protection Clause
› Equal Protection of the Law
› Facial Challenge
› Impeachment
› implied consent
› Judicial Branch
› Justiciable Question
› Legal Standing
› Legislative Branch
› One Subject One Title Rule
› Police Power
› Political Question
› Principle of Proportional Representation
› Self Executing
› Separation of Power
› Theory of Auto-Limitation
› Transcendental Importanct
› undue delegation of legislative power doctrine
" Secretary of Justice vs Lantion
This entry was posted in Constitutional Law 1 Doctrine of Incorporation and tagged Political Law 1 on November 3, 2014

by Morrie26

Secretary of Justice vs Lantion

Doctrine of Incorporation
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE VS LANTION

G.R. No. L-139465 January 18, 2000

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, petitioner,

vs.
HON. RALPH C. LANTION, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 25, and MARK B.
JIMENEZ, respondents.

Facts:

This is a petition for review of a decision of the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Department of
Justice received a request from the Department of Foreign Affairs for the extradition of 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 following 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. The department is not in position to hold in abeyance proceedings in connection with an extradition
request, as Philippines is bound to Vienna Convention on law of treaties such that every treaty in force
is binding upon the parties.

Mark Jimenez then filed a petition against the Secretary of Justice. RTC presiding Judge Lantion favored
Jimenez. Secretary of Justice was made to issue a copy of the requested papers, as well as conducting
further proceedings. Thus, this petition is now at bar.

Issue/s:
Whether or not respondent’s entitlement to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the
proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties of the Philippine Government under the RP-US
Extradition Treaty.

Discussions:

The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situations in
which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the
constitution or statute of a local state. Efforts should be done to harmonize them. In a situation, however,
where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of international law and
municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the municipal courts. The
doctrine of incorporation decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing, but are not
superior to, national legislative enactments.

Ruling/s:

No. The human rights of person, Filipino or foreigner, and the rights of the accused guaranteed in our
Constitution should take precedence over treaty rights claimed by a contracting state. The duties of the
government to the individual deserve preferential consideration when they collide with its treaty obligations
to the government of another state. This is so although we recognize treaties as a source of binding
obligations under generally accepted principles of international law incorporated in our Constitution as part
of the law of the land.

Post navigation
← Philip Morris Inc vs Court of Appeals ABAKADA Guro Party List vs Executive Secretary →

Search

Find Hotels
Planning a Vacation?
· © 2018 Case Digest · Powered by ! · Designed with the Customizr theme ·