Secretary of Justice vs.

Lantion
 The Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs a
request from the United States for the extradition of Mark Jimenez to the
United States pursuant to PD No. 1609 prescribing the procedure for
extradition of persons who have committed a crime in a foreign country.
Jimenez requested for copies of the request and that he be given ample time
to comment on said request. The petitioners denied the request pursuant to
the RP-US Extradition Treaty.
 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.
NO
 The human rights of person and the rights of the accused guaranteed in the
Constitution should take precedence over treaty rights claimed by a
contracting party, the doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal
tribunals are confronted with a situation where there is a conflict between a
rule of the international law and the constitution.
 Efforts must first be made in order to harmonize the provisions so as to give
effect to both but if the conflict is irreconcilable, the municipal law must be
upheld.
 The fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does
not pertain to or imply the primacy of international law over the municipal law in
the municipal sphere.
 In states where the constitution is the highest law of the land, both statutes and
treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution.
 In the case at bar, private respondent does not only face a clear and present
danger of loss of property or employment but of liberty itself, which may
eventually lead to his forcible banishment to a foreign land.
 The convergence of petitioners favorable action on the extradition request and
the deprivation of private respondents liberty is easily comprehensible.
 We have ruled time and again that this Courts equity jurisdiction, which is aptly
described as "justice outside legality," may be availed of only in the absence
of, and never against, statutory law or judicial pronouncements.
 The constitutional issue in the case at bar does not even call for "justice
outside legality," since private respondents due process rights, although not
guaranteed by statute or by treaty, are protected by constitutional guarantees.
 It would not be true to the organic law of the land if we choose strict
construction over guarantees against the deprivation of liberty.
 That would not be in keeping with the principles of democracy on which our
Constitution is premised.
 Thus, Petitioner is ordered 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