The United States Government, on June 17, 1999, through Department of Foreign Affairs U. S.

Note Verbale No. 0522, requested the Philippine Government for the extradition of Mark
Jimenez, herein private respondent, to the United States. The request was forwarded the
following day by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Pending
evaluation of the extradition documents by the DOJ, private respondent requested for copies of
the official extradition request and all pertinent documents and the holding in abeyance of the
proceedings. When his request was denied for being premature, private respondent resorted to an
action for mandamus, certiorari and prohibition. The trial court issued an order maintaining and
enjoining the DOJ from conducting further proceedings, hence, the instant petition.

Although the Extradition Law does not specifically indicate whether the extradition proceeding is
criminal, civil, or a special proceeding, it nevertheless provides the applicability of the Rules of
Court in the hearing of the petition insofar as practicable and not inconsistent with the summary
nature of the proceedings.

The prospective extraditee under Section 2[c] of Presidential Decree No. 1069 faces the threat of
arrest, not only after the extradition petition is filed in court, but even during the evaluation
proceeding itself by virtue of the provisional arrest allowed under the treaty and the
implementing law. Thus, the evaluation process, in essence, partakes of the nature of a criminal
investigation making available certain constitutional rights to the prospective extraditee. The
Court noted that there is a void in the provisions of the RP-US Extradition Treaty regarding the
basic due process rights available to a prospective extraditee at the evaluation stage of the
proceedings. The Court was constrained to apply the rules of fair play, the due process rights of
notice and hearing. Hence, petitioner was ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the
extradition request and its supporting papers and to grant the latter a reasonable time within
which to file his comment with supporting evidence.

INTERNATIONAL LAW; RULE OF PACTA SUNT SERVANDA; CONSTRUED. — The rule

of pacta sunt servanda, one of the oldest and most fundamental maxims of international law,
requires the parties to a treaty to keep their agreement therein in good faith. The observance of
our country's legal duties under a treaty is also compelled by Section 2, Article II of the
Constitution which provides that "[t]he Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national
policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land,
and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all
nations."

DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION; WHEN APPLIED; CASE AT BAR. — Under the doctrine

of incorporation, rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no further
legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere (Salonga & Yap,
Public International Law, 1992 ed., p. 12). The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever
municipal tribunals (or local courts) 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 the
local state. Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both since it
is to be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted
principles of international law in observance of the Incorporation Clause in the above-cited
constitutional provision (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1996 ed., p. 55). 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 (Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 [1957]; Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9
SCRA 230 [1963]; In re: Garcia, 2 SCRA 984 [1961]) for the reason that such courts are organs
of municipal law and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances (Salonga & Yap, op. cit.,
p. 13).

NO PRIMACY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW OVER NATIONAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW. —

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 national or municipal law in the municipal sphere.
The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules of international law
are given equal standing with, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments.
Accordingly, the principle lex posterior derogat priori takes effect — a treaty may repeal a statute
and a statute may repeal a treaty. In states where the constitution is the highest law of the land,
such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are
in conflict with the constitution (Ibid.).