_ & | Republic of the Philippines i Supreme Court Baguié City SECOND DIVISION Gentlemen: Quoted hereunder, Ter your information, is a resolution of this Court dated March 19, 2001 GR. No, 140520 ; Justite Serafin R. Cuevas, subslituled by Arternio G. Tuquero in his capacity as Secretaty of Justice v. Juan Antonio Mufioz, A tasemanl /asttds Mate - RESOLUTION Before us are {wox(2) motions concerning our Decision dated December 18, 2000 in the above-entiled case wherain we granted the potion for review on certiorari and nullified the Decision of the Court of ‘Appeals dated November 9, 1999 In, CA-GR. SP No. 55343 which directed the immediate release of respondent Juan Antonio Mufioz from custoily of lav unon finding the Ordor of provisional arrest lated Seplember 20, 1999 issued by Branch 19 of the’ Ragional Trial Court of Manila to be null and void. . oa atatsh + ‘The first motion is @ Motion for Reconsideration of our Decision filed by respondent Mufoz. Of thé four (4) grounds for reconsideration raised by respondent, only one desenies our consideration, considering that the oller (grounds raised thave been adequalely addressed in our Decision and there is no compaling reston lo warrant a meadeaion of our contusions hereon. ' The Issue that merils clarification, which is the same ground raised by petitioner in his Motion {6r Clarification, the second motion before us, is ‘Biatve (0 au" decoration. op the second issue raised, wie t municipal law (P.D. No. 1069), which provides only a twenty (20) day period fr vind sts absent fame requ for exten preva re international agreement, (-Hongkeng.Agreament) wh al Dove olive (5) yeas the somes iceseofeoncn Secon 2) of Fee Dele Ne 108 (pine den Law) prod (4) Iti ps of met (20 arth provi ae he Screy fFavign ‘Aa a teed te ea fr xian mh aeuretrelne Seon {tts Dees hese sal bce or coe sah ‘10 fe RP emo Br he Sueno oe and Cone Fee Sve Gy a he a wat he eu far unende a a ee ces et ‘rc iy aad pana ye cpa oo tie neti ee rae ies. Ti revi allpotpevat ie ears sien Pe pic pi et repr en (1a fay ; aa‘The Constitution compels ‘the observance of our countn’s legal” duties under a treaty under Section 2, Aticle Il which provides thal “lhe Philippines renounces war as an instrument of natlonal policy, adopts the Generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, end auheres to the policy of peace, equally, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity wit all nalogs” Under the octrid of incorporation, rules of infemnational law form W/ part of the law of the land and no further legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere. A trealy shall be interpreted in good Taith under the rule of pacia sunt servande, in ‘accordance withthe ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the trealy in their context and inthe light ofits object and purpose ‘The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a contlicl between 2 rule of international law and the provisions of the consiitution or statute of the local state. Elforts should fist be exerted to harmonize them, 80 25 to give effect fo both since it fs lo be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for: the generally accepled principles of International faw in observance of the Incorporation Clause in the above- ited constitutional provision? = In @ situation, however, where the conflict Is lreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of Intemational faw and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the ‘municipal courts® for the reason thet such courts are organs of municipal law and are accordingly bound by'it in all ckcumstances.’ The fact that international law hes been made pat ofthe law ofthe land does not pertain ‘0 oF imply the primacy of international law ever national er municipal law in the municipal sphere. The docirine of incorporation, as applied in: most Countries, decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing with, but are not superior to, national legisiave enactments. Accordingly, the principle tex posterior derogat prior! takes effect - a treaty may fepeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. Where a tealy and 4 statute are on an equally, a new lrealy prevails over an earlier statute, bul Is also the case that 2 new sialute prevails over a eely. ‘Thus, belore the national courts of the stele where the stalule has been enacted, that whichis laler in date must prevail, unless the treaty Contains provisions of international law which have been adopted in the Conslituion as a pat of the law of te land, in which ease the treaty must prevail® + Salonga Yop, Pblciervatoa! Lay, 1992 S* Ep 12 {Salonge & Yop Fab ltrainal Lap, 1992 3° Bp (Cre, Phiipine Polieal gm 1945 0,938, tehorg vHesandes 101 Bhi 1.88 [1957 Garalesv, Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230 [1963], Inge: Garin.2SCRA 944 [1961] Salonga Yap, tbe neal Law, 192 5°, 9,13, ‘Arunge, Pui Iternfonal Uw, 1979Reriaeé Ed pp. 1718 Ima aad abe. Manuel Min ntast oakge ee) Diy Applying the foregoing to the case at bar, clearly the forty-five (45) day period set forth ghder the trealy (RP-Hongkong Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons) prevails over the lwenty (20) Gay period set by the stalule (P.D. No, 1068), the trealy having been eniered into force on June 20, 1997 as against the siatule of municipal law (.D. No, 1069) which was enacted on January 13, 1977. in the case at ber, after the respondent's arrest on September 23, 1889, the Philippine DOJ rocoived from the Hongkong DOJ on November 8, 1999, @ request for the surrender to the laller of the herein respondent, Hence, forty-three (43) days elapsed from sald date of arrest of respondent {othe actual date of receipt of the request for surrender. The Regional Trial Court of Manila therefore acted correctly in accordance withthe said lrealy in not releasing respondent alferthe lapse of twenty (20) days from the data of his arrest on September 23, 1999, WHEREFORE, aé regaide tho polilioner's Motion for Clarification, “sour Decision dated December 18, 2000 is accordingly MODIFIED. 4 * However, the respondent's Molign for Reconsideration dated January 26, / 2004 is hereby DENIED. very truly yours, lerk of Court ‘ f Sf S.R. 140820 G Second Division Bops ATTY, CEEAR G. DAVID (nod * Goundel fer Suan haronle thiide Tih dotuFieaae? yeh aR” GIES ito" Hatt diel ATTY. wa, wepesessng vu geortsnase «sy ARSE: Bi PSEA A, Poem eh Eee a: 1000°fandtas AFM nae LOA EY D AnEonio 2 0& CURT OF APPEALS (x net BESS a Us “Grose street ido0"HSai1e tA (veg) “THE HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE (x) Z Departnent of Justice : Padre Faura St., Ermita 1000" Manila QULGHENT DIVISION (2) kt Supreme courts Manff2 SOLICITOR GENERAL jp. CALVES tre, SgeTgaTOR GRAPRBE Cane. Ba oR o = Tiitotsole ate. Leesspi it idve Hezo ASEREY Bes fan’ . : MN.