Secretary of Justice vs. Hon.

Ralph Lantion

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

FACTS:

➢ 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.

ISSUE:

➢ W.O.N. whether or not there is tentativeness of administrative action.

Is private respondent precluded from enjoying the right to notice and

hearing at a later time without prejudice to him?1

HELD:

➢ YES. Here lies the peculiarity and deviant characteristic of the

evaluation procedure. On one hand, there is yet no extraditee, but

ironically on the other, it results in an administrative determination

1
Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160, G.R. No. 139465 January 18, 2000
 which, if adverse to the person involved, may cause his immediate

incarceration. The grant of the request shall lead to the filing of the

extradition petition in court. The “accused” (as Section 2[c] of

Presidential Decree No. 1069 calls him), 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. The prejudice to the

“accused” is thus blatant and manifest. Plainly, the notice and hearing

requirements of administrative due process cannot be dispensed with

and shelved aside.2

DISPOSITION:

➢ WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant petition

is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. 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 evidence.3

2
Ibid., Note 1, p. 164
3
Id., Note 1, p. 202