7. Sec. of Justice vs Lantion - FT

8/11/2019 7. Sec. of Justice vs Lantion - FT

1/37

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 139465 January 18, 2000

SECRETAR O! JUST"CE, petitioner,vs.#ON. RA$P# C. $ANT"ON, Pr%&'('n) Ju()%, R%)'ona* Tr'a* Cour+ o Man'*a, -ran / 25, an(MAR -. J"MENE , respondents.

ME$O, J.:

The individual citizen is but a speck of particle or olecule vis--vis the vast and over!hel in"po!ers of "overn ent. #is onl$ "uarantee a"ainst oppression and t$rann$ are his funda entalliberties under the Bill of Ri"hts !hich shield hi in ti es of need. The Court is no! called to decide

!hether to uphold a citizen%s basic due process ri"hts, or the "overn ent%s ironclad duties under atreat$. The bu"le sounds and this Court ust once a"ain act as the faithful "uardian of thefunda ental !rit.

The petition at our doorstep is cast a"ainst the follo!in" factual backdrop&

'n (anuar$ )*, )+ , then President -erdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential ecree No. )/0+1Prescribin" the Procedure for the E2tradition of Persons 3ho #ave Co itted Cri es in a -orei"nCountr$1. The ecree is founded on& the doctrine of incorporation under the Constitution4 the utualconcern for the suppression of cri e both in the state !here it !as co itted and the state !herethe cri inal a$ have escaped4 the e2tradition treat$ !ith the Republic of 5ndonesia and theintention of the Philippines to enter into si ilar treaties !ith other interested countries4 and the need

for rules to "uide the e2ecutive depart ent and the courts in the proper i ple entation of saidtreaties.

'n Nove ber )*, )++6, then 7ecretar$ of (ustice -ranklin M. rilon, representin" the 8overn entof the Republic of the Philippines, si"ned in Manila the 1E2tradition Treat$ Bet!een the 8overn entof the Republic of the Philippines and the 8overn ent of the 9nited 7tates of A erica1 :hereinafterreferred to as the RP;97 E2tradition Treat$


2/37

B< 0 97C /) :Atte pt to evade or defeat ta24 four 6 counts4 Ma2i u Penalt$ D =$ears on each countuest fro the 9.7. 8overn ent, as !ell as all docu ents and papers sub itted there!ith4 andthat he be "iven a ple ti e to co ent on the re>uest after he shall have received copies of there>uested papers. Private respondent also re>uested that the proceedin"s on the atter be held inabe$ance in the eanti e.

ater, private respondent re>uested that preli inar$, he be "iven at least a cop$ of, or access to, there>uest of the 9nited 7tates 8overn ent, and after receivin" a cop$ of the iplo atic Note, a period

of ti e to a plif$ on his re>uest.

5n response to private respondent%s (ul$ ), )+++ letter, petitioner, in a repl$;letter dated (ul$ )*, )+++:but received b$ private respondent onl$ on Au"ust 6, )+++uests for thefollo!in" reasons&

). 3e find it pre ature to furnish $ou !ith copies of the e2tradition re>uest and supportin"docu ents fro the 9nited 7tates 8overn ent, pendin" evaluation b$ this epart ent ofthe sufficienc$ of the e2tradition docu ents sub itted in accordance !ith the provisions ofthe e2tradition treat$ and our e2tradition la!. Article of the E2tradition Treat$ bet!een thePhilippines and the 9nited 7tates enu erates the docu entar$ re>uire ents andestablishes the procedures under !hich the docu ents sub itted shall be received andad itted as evidence. Evidentiar$ re>uire ents under our do estic la! are also set forth in7ection 6 of P. . No. )/0+.

Evaluation b$ this epart ent of the afore entioned docu ents is not a preli inar$investi"ation nor akin to preli inar$ investi"ation of cri inal cases. 3e erel$ deter ine!hether the procedures and re>uire ents under the relevant la! and treat$ have beenco plied !ith b$ the Re>uestin" 8overn ent. The constitutionall$ "uaranteed ri"hts of theaccused in all cri inal prosecutions are therefore not available.


3/37

5t is onl$ after the filin" of the petition for e2tradition !hen the person sou"ht to be e2tradited!ill be furnished b$ the court !ith copies of the petition, re>uest and e2tradition docu entsand this epart ent !ill not pose an$ obFection to a re>uest for a ple ti e to evaluate saiddocu ents.

. The for al re>uest for e2tradition of the 9nited 7tates contains "rand Fur$ infor ation and

docu ents obtained throu"h "rand Fur$ process covered b$ strict secrec$ rules under 9nited7tates la!. The 9nited 7tates had to secure orders fro the concerned istrict Courtsauthorizin" the 9nited 7tates to disclose certain "rand Fur$ infor ation to Philippine"overn ent and la! enforce ent personnel for the purpose of e2tradition of Mr. (i enez.

An$ further disclosure of the said infor ation is not authorized b$ the 9nited 7tates istrictCourts. 5n this particular e2tradition re>uest the 9nited 7tates 8overn ent re>uested thePhilippine 8overn ent to prevent unauthorized disclosure of the subFect infor ation. This

epart ent%s denial of $our re>uest is consistent !ith Article of the RP;97 E2traditionTreat$ !hich provides that the Philippine 8overn ent ust represent the interests of the9nited 7tates in an$ proceedin"s arisin" out of a re>uest for e2tradition. The epart ent of(ustice under P. . No. )/0+ is the counsel of the forei"n "overn ents in all e2traditionre>uests.

*. This epart ent is not in a position to hold in abe$ance proceedin"s in connection !ith ane2tradition re>uest. Article 0 of the @ienna Convention on the a! of Treaties, to !hich !eare a part$ provides that 1 E ver$ treat$ in force is bindin" upon the parties to it and ust beperfor ed b$ the in "ood faith1. E2tradition is a tool of cri inal la! enforce ent and to beeffective, re>uests for e2tradition or surrender of accused or convicted persons ust beprocessed e2peditiousl$.

:pp. ; ?, Rollo .uest is ade b$ the -orei"n iplo at of the Re>uestin" 7tate, addressed to the 7ecretar$ of -orei"n Affairs, and shall be acco panied b$&

). The ori"inal or an authentic cop$ of the cri inal char"e and the !arrant of arrest issued b$the authorit$ of the Re>uestin" 7tate havin" Furisdiction over the atter, or so e otherinstru ents havin" e>uivalent le"al force4


6/37

. A recital of the acts for !hich e2tradition is re>uested, !ith the fullest particulars as to thena e and identit$ of the accused, his !hereabouts in the Philippines, if kno!n, the acts oro issions co plained of, and the ti e and place of the co ission of these acts4

*. The te2t of the applicable la! or a state ent of the contents of said la!, and thedesi"nation or description of the offense b$ the la!, sufficient for evaluation of the re>uest4

and

6. 7uch other docu ents or infor ation in support of the re>uest.

:7ec. 6. Presidential ecree No. )/0+.uest fails to eet there>uire ents of this la! and the relevant treat$ or convention, he shall for!ard the re>uestto"ether !ith the related docu ents to the 7ecretar$ of (ustice, !ho shall i ediatel$

desi"nate and authorize an attorne$ in his office to take char"e of the case.

The above provision sho!s onl$ too clearl$ that the e2ecutive authorit$ "iven the task of evaluatin"the sufficienc$ of the re>uest and the supportin" docu ents is the 7ecretar$ of -orei"n Affairs. 3hatthen is the covera"e of this taskL

5n accordance !ith Para"raphs and *, Article of the RP;97 E2tradition Treat$, the e2ecutiveauthorit$ ust ascertain !hether or not the re>uest is supported b$&

). ocu ents, state ents, or other t$pes of infor ation !hich describe the identit$ andprobable location of the person sou"ht4

. A state ent of the facts of the offense and the procedural histor$ of the case4

*. A state ent of the provisions of the la! describin" the essential ele ents of the offensefor !hich e2tradition is re>uested4

6. A state ent of the provisions of la! describin" the punish ent for the offense4

=. A state ent of the provisions of the la! describin" an$ ti e li it on the prosecution or thee2ecution of punish ent for the offense4

0. ocu ents, state ents, or other t$pes of infor ation specified in para"raph * orpara"raph 6 of said Article, as applicable.

:Para"raph , Article , Presidential ecree No. )/0+.uest is politicall$ otivated, or that the offense is a ilitar$ offense !hich is notpunishable under non; ilitar$ penal le"islation. I(so )acto , as e2pressl$ provided in Para"raph ) ,7ection = of the E2tradition a!, the 7ecretar$ of (ustice has the inisterial dut$ of filin" thee2tradition papers.

#o!ever, lookin" at the factual ilieu of the case before us, it !ould appear that there !as failure toabide b$ the provisions of Presidential ecree No. )/0+. -or !hile it is true that the e2traditionre>uest !as delivered to the epart ent of -orei"n Affairs on (une ) , )+++, the follo!in" da$ orless than 6 hours later, the epart ent of (ustice received the re>uest, apparentl$ !ithout the

epart ent of -orei"n Affairs dischar"in" its dut$ of thorou"hl$ evaluatin" the sa e and its

acco pan$in" docu ents. The state ent of an assistant secretar$ at the epart ent of -orei"n Affairs that his epart ent, in this re"ard, is erel$ actin" as a post office, for !hich reason hesi pl$ for!arded the re>uest to the epart ent of (ustice, indicates the a"nitude of the error ofthe epart ent of -orei"n Affairs in takin" li"htl$ its responsibilities. Thereafter, the epart ent of(ustice took it upon itself to deter ine the co pleteness of the docu ents and to evaluate the sa eto find out !hether the$ co pl$ !ith the re>uire ents laid do!n in the E2tradition a! and the RP;97 E2tradition Treat$. Petitioner ratiocinates in this connection that althou"h the epart ent of(ustice had no obli"ation to evaluate the e2tradition docu ents, the epart ent also had to "o overthe so as to be able to prepare an e2tradition petition :tsn, Au"ust *), )+++, pp. 6; =uest, and to present evidence in support of theopposition4 and :*< that the evaluation proceedin"s be held in abe$ance pendin" the filin" of private

respondent%s opposition to the re>uest.

The t!o epart ents see to have isread the scope of their duties and authorit$, one abdicatin"its po!ers and the other enlar"in" its co ission. The epart ent of -orei"n Affairs, oreover,has, throu"h the 7olicitor 8eneral, filed a anifestation that it is adoptin" the instant petition as itso!n, indirectl$ conve$in" the essa"e that if it !ere to evaluate the e2tradition re>uest, it !ould notallo! private respondent to participate in the process of evaluation.

Plainl$ then, the record cannot support the presu ption of re"ularit$ that the epart ent of -orei"n Affairs thorou"hl$ revie!ed the e2tradition re>uest and supportin" docu ents and that it arrived at a!ell;founded Fud" ent that the re>uest and its anne2ed docu ents satisf$ the re>uire ents of la!.The 7ecretar$ of (ustice, e inent as he is in the field of la!, could not privatel$ revie! the papers all

b$ hi self. #e had to officiall$ constitute a panel of attorne$s. #o! then could the -A 7ecretar$ orhis undersecretar$, in less than one da$, ake the ore authoritative deter inationL

The evaluation process, Fust like the e2tradition proceedin"s proper, belon"s to a class b$ itself. 5tis sui 'eneris . 5t is not a cri inal investi"ation, but it is also erroneous to sa$ that it is purel$ ane2ercise of inisterial functions. At such sta"e, the e2ecutive authorit$ has the po!er& :a< to ake atechnical assess ent of the co pleteness and sufficienc$ of the e2tradition papers4 :b< to outri"htl$den$ the re>uest if on its face and on the face of the supportin" docu ents the cri es indicated arenot e2traditable4 and :c< to ake a deter ination !hether or not the re>uest is politicall$ otivated,


9/37

or that the offense is a ilitar$ one !hich is not punishable under non; ilitar$ penal le"islation :tsn, Au"ust *), )+++, pp. ?; +4 Article and Para"raph * , Article *, RP;97 E2tradition Treat$uasi;Fudicial po!er.

5n ad inistrative la!, a >uasi;Fudicial proceedin" involves& :a< takin" and evaluation of evidence4 :buasi;Fudicial authorit$ :Cruz, Phil. Ad inistrative a!, )++0 ed., p. 0uestin" 7tate and the prospective e2traditee. 5ts onl$ po!er is to deter ine !hetherthe papers co pl$ !ith the re>uire ents of the la! and the treat$ and, therefore, sufficient to be thebasis of an e2tradition petition. 7uch findin" is thus erel$ initial and not final. The bod$ has nopo!er to deter ine !hether or not the e2tradition should be effected. That is the role of the court.The bod$%s po!er is li ited to an initial findin" of !hether or not the e2tradition petition can be filedin court.

5t is to be noted, ho!ever, that in contrast to ordinar$ investi"ations, the evaluation procedure ischaracterized b$ certain peculiarities. Pri aril$, it sets into otion the !heels of the e2traditionprocess. 9lti atel$, it a$ result in the deprivation of libert$ of the prospective e2traditee. Thisdeprivation can be effected at t!o sta"es& /irst , the provisional arrest of the prospective e2traditee

pendin" the sub ission of the re>uest. This is so because the Treat$ provides that in case ofur"enc$, a contractin" part$ a$ re>uest the provisional arrest of the person sou"ht pendin"presentation of the re>uest :Para"raph ) , Article +, RP;97 E2tradition Treat$


10/37

purpose of this detention is to prevent his possible fli"ht fro the Re>uested 7tate. Second , thete porar$ arrest of the prospective e2traditee durin" the pendenc$ of the e2tradition petition in court:7ection 0, Presidential ecree No. )/0+uences, !e conclude that the evaluation process is akin to anad inistrative a"enc$ conductin" an investi"ative proceedin", the conse>uences of !hich areessentiall$ cri inal since such technical assess ent sets off or co ences the procedure for, andulti atel$, the deprivation of libert$ of a prospective e2traditee. As described b$ petitioner hi self,this is a 1tool1 for cri inal la! enforce ent :p. ?, Rollo uest e2poses a person to eventual e2traditionto a forei"n countr$, thus salientl$ e2hibitin" the cri inal or penal aspect of the process. 5n thissense, the evaluation procedure is akin to a preli inar$ investi"ation since both procedures a$have the sa e result D the arrest and i prison ent of the respondent or the person char"ed.7i ilar to the evaluation sta"e of e2tradition proceedin"s, a preli inar$ investi"ation, !hich a$


11/37

result in the filin" of an infor ation a"ainst the respondent, can possibl$ lead to his arrest, and to thedeprivation of his libert$.

Petitioner%s reliance on 3ri'"t vs . Court o) A((eals : *= 7CRA 6) )++ < :p. ?, petitioner%sMe orandu < that the e2tradition treat$ is neither a piece of cri inal le"islation nor a cri inalprocedural statute is not !ell;taken. 3ri'"t is not authorit$ for petitioner%s conclusion that his

preli inar$ processin" is not akin to a preli inar$ investi"ation. The characterization of a treat$in 3ri'"t !as in reference to the applicabilit$ of the prohibition a"ainst an e# (ost )acto la!. 5t hadnothin" to do !ith the denial of the ri"ht to notice, infor ation, and hearin".

As earl$ as )??6, the 9nited 7tates 7upre e Court ruled that 1an$ le"al proceedin" enforced b$public authorit$, !hether sanctioned b$ a"e or custo , or ne!l$ devised in the discretion of thele"islative po!er, in furtherance of the "eneral public "ood, !hich re"ards and preserved theseprinciples of libert$ and Fustice, ust be held to be due process of la!1 :#urtado vs. California, ))/9.7. =)0uire ents cannot be dee ed non;co pliance !ithtreat$ co it ents.

The 9nited 7tates and the Philippines share a utual concern about the suppression and

punish ent of cri e in their respective Furisdictions. At the sa e ti e, both 7tates accord co ondue process protection to their respective citizens.

The due process clauses in the A erican and Philippine Constitutions are not onl$ !orded in e2actl$identical lan"ua"e and ter inolo"$, but ore i portantl$, the$ are alike in !hat their respective7upre e Courts have e2pounded as the spirit !ith !hich the provisions are infor ed andi pressed, the elasticit$ in their interpretation, their d$na ic and resilient character !hich akethe capable of eetin" ever$ odern proble , and their havin" been desi"ned fro earliest ti eto the present to eet the e2i"encies of an undefined and e2pandin" future. The re>uire ents ofdue process are interpreted in both the 9nited 7tates and the Philippines as not den$in" to the la!the capacit$ for pro"ress and i prove ent. To!ard this effect and in order to avoid the confines of ale"al straitFacket, the courts instead prefer to have the eanin" of the due process clause 1"raduall$ascertained b$ the process of inclusion and e2clusion in the course of the decisions of cases as the$arise1 :T!inin" vs. Ne! (erse$, )) 9.7. ?


12/37

ri"ht to sub it counter;affidavits and other supportin" docu ents !ithin ten da$s fro receiptthereof. Moreover, the respondent shall have the ri"ht to e2a ine all other evidence sub itted b$the co plainant.

These t!in ri"hts a$, ho!ever, be considered dispensable in certain instances, such as&

). 5n proceedin" !here there is an ur"ent need for i ediate action, like the su ar$abate ent of a nuisance (er se :Article /6, Civil Codeuer$ a$ be asked& oes the evaluation sta"eof the e2tradition proceedin"s fall under an$ of the described situations entioned aboveL

et us take a brief look at the nature of A erican e2tradition proceedin"s !hich are >uite note!orth$considerin" that the subFect treat$ involves the 9.7. 8overn ent.

A erican Furisprudence distin"uishes bet!een interstate rendition or e2tradition !hich is based onthe E2tradition Clause in the 9.7. Constitution :Art. 5@, cl


13/37

5n international proceedin"s, e2tradition treaties "enerall$ provide for the presentation to thee2ecutive authorit$ of the Re>uested 7tate of a re>uisition or de and for the return of the alle"edoffender, and the desi"nation of the particular officer havin" authorit$ to act in behalf of thede andin" nation :*)A Am 4ur d ?)=uests for the provincial arrest of an individual a$ be ade directl$ b$ the Philippine

epart ent of (ustice to the 9.7. epart ent of (ustice, and vice;versa. 5n the event of aprovisional arrest, a for al re>uest for e2tradition is trans itted subse>uentl$ throu"h thediplo atic channel.

. The epart ent of 7tate for!ards the inco in" Philippine e2tradition re>uest to the

epart ent of (ustice. Before doin" so, the epart ent of 7tate prepares a declarationconfir in" that a for al re>uest has been ade, that the treat$ is in full force and effect, thatunder Article ) thereof the parties provide reciprocal le"al representation in e2traditionproceedin"s, that the offenses are covered as e2traditable offenses under Article thereof,and that the docu ents have been authenticated in accordance !ith the federal statute thatensures ad issibilit$ at an$ subse>uent e2tradition hearin".

*. A Fud"e or a"istrate Fud"e is authorized to issue a !arrant for the arrest of theprospective e2traditee :)? 9.7.C. *)?6uestions concernin" the otives ofthe re>uestin" "overn ent in seekin" his e2tradition. #o!ever, a person facin" e2tradition

a$ present !hatever infor ation he dee s relevant to the 7ecretar$ of 7tate, !ho akes


14/37

the final deter ination !hether to surrender an individual to the forei"n "overn entconcerned.

-ro the fore"oin", it a$ be observed that in the 9nited 7tates, e2tradition be"ins and ends !ithone entit$ D the epart ent of 7tate D !hich has the po!er to evaluate the re>uest and thee2tradition docu ents in the be"innin", and, in the person of the 7ecretar$ of 7tate, the po!er to act

or not to act on the court%s deter ination of e2traditabilit$. 5n the Philippine settin", it is theepart ent of -orei"n Affairs !hich should ake the initial evaluation of the re>uest, and havin"

satisfied itself on the points earlier entioned : see pp. )/;) uest to theepart ent of (ustice for the preparation and filin" of the petition for e2tradition. 7adl$, ho!ever, theepart ent of -orei"n Affairs, in the instant case, perfunctoril$ turned over the re>uest to theepart ent of (ustice !hich has taken over the task of evaluatin" the re>uest as !ell as thereafter,

if so !arranted, preparin", filin", and prosecutin" the petition for e2tradition.

Private respondent asks !hat preFudice !ill be caused to the 9.7. 8overn ent should the personsou"ht to be e2tradited be "iven due process ri"hts b$ the Philippines in the evaluation sta"e. #ee phasizes that petitioner%s pri ar$ concern is the possible dela$ in the evaluation process.

3e a"ree !ith private respondent%s citation of an A erican 7upre e Court rulin"&

The establish ent of pro pt efficacious procedures to achieve le"iti ate state ends is aproper state interest !orth$ of co"nizance in constitutional adFudication. 0ut t"e Constitutionreco'ni2es "i'"er values t"an s(eed and e))icienc5 . 5ndeed, one i"ht fairl$ sa$ of the Bill of Ri"hts in "eneral, and the ue Process Clause, in particular, that the$ !ere desi'ned to

(rotect t"e )ra'ile values o) a vulnera$le citi2enr5 )rom t"e over$earin' concern )or e))icienc5 and e))icac5 t"at ma5 c"aracteri2e (raise ort"5 'overnment o))icials no less , and perhaps

ore, than ediocre ones.

:7tanle$ vs. 5llinois, 6/6 9.7. 06=, 0=0uestionthat not even the stron"est oral conviction or the ost ur"ent public need, subFect onl$ to afe! notable e2ceptions, !ill e2cuse the b$passin" of an individual%s ri"hts. 5t is noe2a""eration to sa$ that a person invokin" a ri"ht "uaranteed under Article 555 of theConstitution is a aForit$ of one even as a"ainst the rest of the nation !ho !ould den$ hithat ri"ht :Association of 7 all ando!ners in the Philippines, 5nc. vs. 7ecretar$ of A"rarianRefor , ) = 7CRA *6*, * =;* 0 )+?+


15/37

persons ust be processed e2peditiousl$. Nevertheless, accelerated or fast;tracked proceedin"sand adherence to fair procedures are, ho!ever, not al!a$s inco patible. The$ do not al!a$s clashin discord. 7u ar$ does not ean precipitous haste. 5t does not carr$ a disre"ard of the basicprinciples inherent in 1ordered libert$.1

5s there reall$ an ur"ent need for i ediate action at the evaluation sta"eL At that point, there is no

e2traditee $et in the strict sense of the !ord. E2tradition a$ or a$ not occur. 5n interstatee2tradition, the "overnor of the as$lu state a$ not, in the absence of andator$ statute, beco pelled to act favorabl$ :* C.(.7. *? < since after a close evaluation of the e2tradition papers, he

a$ hold that federal and statutor$ re>uire ents, !hich are si"nificantl$ Furisdictional, have not beenet :*) Am 4ur d ?)+uested state has the po!er to den$ the behest fro the re>uestin" state. Accordin"l$, if after acareful e2a ination of the e2tradition docu ents the 7ecretar$ of -orei"n Affairs finds that there>uest fails to eet the re>uire ents of the la! and the treat$, he shall not for!ard the re>uest tothe epart ent of (ustice for the filin" of the e2tradition petition since non;co pliance !ith theaforesaid re>uire ents !ill not vest our "overn ent !ith Furisdiction to effect the e2tradition.

5n this li"ht, it should be observed that the epart ent of (ustice e2erted notable efforts in assurin"

co pliance !ith the re>uire ents of the la! and the treat$ since it even infor ed the 9.7.8overn ent of certain proble s in the e2tradition papers :such as those that are in 7panish and!ithout the official En"lish translation, and those that are not properl$ authenticateduir$ is the issue of !hether or not there is tentativeness of ad inistrative action. 5sprivate respondent precluded fro enFo$in" the ri"ht to notice and hearin" at a later ti e !ithoutpreFudice to hi L #ere lies the peculiarit$ and deviant characteristic of the evaluation procedure. 'none hand there is $et no e2traditee, but ironicall$ on the other, it results in an ad inistrative ifadverse to the person involved, a$ cause his i ediate incarceration. The "rant of the re>uestshall lead to the filin" of the e2tradition petition in court. The 1accused1 :as 7ection c ofPresidential ecree No. )/0+ calls hi uire ents of ad inistrative due process cannot be dispensed !ithand shelved aside.

Apart fro the due process clause of the Constitution, private respondent like!ise invokes 7ection of Article 555 !hich reads&

7ec. . The ri"ht of the people to infor ation on atters of public concern shall bereco"nized. Access to official records, and to docu ents and papers pertainin" to officialacts, transactions, or decisions, as !ell as to "overn ent research data used as basis forpolic$ develop ent, shall be afforded the citizen, subFect to such li itations as a$ beprovided b$ la!.

The above provision "uarantees political ri"hts !hich are available to citizens of the Philippines,na el$& :)< the ri"ht to infor ation on atters of public concern, and : < the corollar$ ri"ht of access


16/37

to official records docu ents. The "eneral ri"ht "uaranteed b$ said provision is the ri"ht toinfor ation on atters of public concern. 5n its i ple entation, the ri"ht of access to official recordsis like!ise conferred. These co"nate or related ri"hts are 1subFect to li itations as a$ be providedb$ la!1 :Bernas, The )+? Phil. Constitution A Revie!er;Pri er, )++ ed., p. )/6< and rel$ on thepre ise that ulti atel$ it is an infor ed and critical public opinion !hich alone can protect the valuesof de ocratic "overn ent : I$id .uested are not of public concern. 'n the other hand, private respondent ar"ues thatthe distinction bet!een atters vested !ith public interest and atters !hich are of purel$ privateinterest onl$ beco es aterial !hen a third person, !ho is not directl$ affected b$ the attersre>uested, invokes the ri"ht to infor ation. #o!ever, if the person invokin" the ri"ht is the onedirectl$ affected thereb$, his ri"ht to infor ation beco es absolute.

The concept of atters of public concerns escapes e2act definition. 7trictl$ speakin", ever$ act of apublic officer in the conduct of the "overn ental process is a atter of public concern :Bernas, The)+? Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, )++0 ed., p. **0uested b$ private respondent pertain to official "overn ent actionfro the 9.7. 8overn ent. No official action fro our countr$ has $et been taken. Moreover, thepapers have so e relation to atters of forei"n relations !ith the 9.7. 8overn ent. Conse>uentl$, if a third part$ invokes this constitutional provision, statin" that the e2tradition papers are atters ofpublic concern since the$ a$ result in the e2tradition of a -ilipino, !e are afraid that the balance

ust be tilted, at such particular ti e, in favor of the interests necessar$ for the proper functionin" of the "overn ent. urin" the evaluation procedure, no official "overn ental action of our o!n"overn ent has as $et been done4 hence the invocation of the ri"ht is pre ature. ater, and in

contrast, records of the e2tradition hearin" !ould alread$ fall under atters of public concern,because our "overn ent b$ then shall have alread$ ade an official decision to "rant the e2traditionre>uest. The e2tradition of a fello! -ilipino !ould be forthco in".

3e no! pass upon the final issue pertinent to the subFect atter of the instant controvers$& 3ouldprivate respondent%s entitle ent to notice and hearin" durin" the evaluation sta"e of the proceedin"sconstitute a breach of the le"al duties of the Philippine 8overn ent under the RP;E2traditionTreat$L Assu in" the ans!er is in the affir ative, is there reall$ a conflict bet!een the treat$ andthe due process clause in the ConstitutionL


17/37

-irst and fore ost, let us cate"oricall$ sa$ that this is not the proper ti e to pass upon theconstitutionalit$ of the provisions of the RP;97 E2tradition Treat$ nor the E2tradition a!i ple entin" the sa e. 3e li it ourselves onl$ to the effect of the "rant of the basic ri"hts of noticeand hearin" to private respondent on forei"n relations.

The rule of (acta sunt servanda , one of the oldest and ost funda ental a2i s of international

la!, re>uires the parties to a treat$ to keep their a"ree ent therein in "ood faith. The observance ofour countr$%s le"al duties under a treat$ is also co pelled b$ 7ection , Article 55 of the Constitution!hich provides that 1 t he Philippines renounces !ar as an instru ent of national polic$, adopts the"enerall$ accepted principles of international la! as part of the la! of the land, and adheres to thepolic$ of peace, e>ualit$, Fustice, freedo , cooperation and a it$ !ith nations.1 9nder the doctrine of incorporation, rules of international la! for part of the la! of the and land no further le"islativeaction is needed to ake such rules applicable in the do estic sphere :7alon"a Jap, Public5nternational a!, )++ ed., p. ) ual standin" !ith, but are not superior to, nationalle"islative enact ents. Accordin"l$, the principle le# (osterior dero'at (riori takes effect D a treat$

a$ repeal a statute and a statute a$ repeal a treat$. 5n states !here the constitution is the hi"hestla! of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties a$ beinvalidated if the$ are in conflict !ith the constitution : I$id .uentl$, he describes theevaluation procedure as an 1 e# (arte technical assess ent1 of the sufficienc$ of the e2traditionre>uest and the supportin" docu ents.

3e disa"ree.


18/37

5n the absence of a la! or principle of la!, !e ust appl$ the rules of fair pla$. An application of thebasic t!in due process ri"hts of notice and hearin" !ill not "o a"ainst the treat$ or the i ple entin"la!. Neither the Treat$ nor the E2tradition a! precludes these ri"hts fro a prospective e2traditee.7i ilarl$, A erican Furisprudence and procedures on e2tradition pose no proscription. 5n fact, ininterstate e2tradition proceedin"s as e2plained above, the prospective e2traditee a$ even re>uestfor copies of the e2tradition docu ents fro the "overnor of the as$lu state, and if he does, his

ri"ht to be supplied the sa e beco es a de andable ri"ht :*= C.(.7. 6)/uested the Philippine 8overn ent to preventunauthorized disclosure of confidential infor ation. #ence, the secrec$ surroundin" the action of the

epart ent of (ustice Panel of Attorne$s. The confidentialit$ ar"u ent is, ho!ever, overturned b$petitioner%s revelation that ever$thin" it refuses to ake available at this sta"e !ould be obtainabledurin" trial. The epart ent of (ustice states that the 9.7. istrict Court concerned has authorizedthe disclosure of certain "rand Fur$ infor ation. 5f the infor ation is trul$ confidential, the veil ofsecrec$ cannot be lifted at an$ sta"e of the e2tradition proceedin"s. Not even durin" trial.

A libertarian approach is thus called for under the pre ises.

'ne !ill search in vain the RP;97 E2tradition Treat$, the E2tradition a!, as !ell as A erican Furisprudence and procedures on e2tradition, for an$ prohibition a"ainst the confer ent of the t!obasic due process ri"hts of notice and hearin" durin" the evaluation sta"e of the e2traditionproceedin"s. 3e have to consider si ilar situations in Furisprudence for an application b$ analo"$.

Earlier, !e stated that there are si ilarities bet!een the evaluation process and a preli inar$investi"ation since both procedures a$ result in the arrest of the respondent or the prospectivee2traditee. 5n the evaluation process, a provisional arrest is even allo!ed b$ the Treat$ and theE2tradition a! :Article +, RP;97 E2tradition Treat$4 7ec. /, Presidential ecree No. )/0+


19/37

#o! then do !e i ple ent the RP;97 E2tradition Treat$L o !e li it ourselves to the four cornersof Presidential ecree No. )/0+L

'f analo"ous application are the rulin"s in 7overnment Service Insurance S5stem vs . Court o) A((eals : /) 7CRA 00) )++) < and 7o vs . National %olice Commission : ) 7CRA 66 )++

'r"anization of the Civil 7ervice Co ission in Accordance !ith Provisions of the Constitution,Prescribin" its Po!ers and -unctions and for ' ther Purposesuest and its


20/37

supportin" papers, and to "rant hi a reasonable period !ithin !hich to file his co ent !ithsupportin" evidence. The incidents in Civil Case No. ++;+60?6 havin" been rendered oot andacade ic b$ this decision, the sa e is hereb$ ordered dis issed.

7' 'R ERE .

0ellosillo, %urisima, 0uena and De 8eon, 4r , 44 , concurDavide, 4r , C 4 , I 6oin Mr 4ustice %uno in "is dissent%uno, 4 , (lease see dissent9itu', 4 , see se(arate o(inion1a(unan, 4 , see se(arate concurrin' o(inion%an'ani$an, 4 , (lease see m5 dissentin' o(inionMendo2a, 4 , I 6oin t"e dissents o) %uno and %an'ani$an, 44:uisum$in', 4 , it" concurrin' o(inion%ardo, 4 , I 6oin 4 %uno ; 4 %an'ani$an7on2a'a-Re5es, 4 , I 6oin t"e dissent o) 4ustices %uno ; %an'ani$anuest of privaterespondent to be furnished !ith copies of the e2tradition docu ents.

5 add. The constitutional ri"ht to due process secures to ever$one an opportunit$ to be heard,presupposin" forekno!led"e of !hat he a$ be up a"ainst, and to sub it an$ evidence that he a$!ish to proffer in an effort to clear hi self. This ri"ht is t!o;pron"ed D substantive and proceduraldue process D founded, in the first instance, on Constitutional or statutor$ provisions, and in thesecond instance, on accepted rules of procedure. *7ubstantive due process looks into the e2trinsicand intrinsic validit$ of the la! that fi"ures to interfere !ith the ri"ht of a person to his life, libert$ andpropert$. Procedural due process D the ore liti"ated of the t!o D focuses on the rules that areestablished in order to ensure eanin"ful adFudication in the enforce ent and i ple entation of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt1


21/37

la!. ike 1public concern,1 the ter due process does not ad it of an$ restrictive definition. (ustice-rankfurter has vie!ed this fle2ible concept, aptl$ 5 believe, as bein" 1. . . co pounded b$ histor$,reason, the past course of decisions, and stout confidence in the de ocratic faith.1 6 The fra ers ofour o!n Constitution, it !ould see , have deliberatel$ intended, to ake it alleable to the ever;chan"in" ilieu of societ$. #itherto, it is d$na ic and resilient, adaptable to ever$ situation callin" for its application that akes it appropriate to accept an enlar"ed concept of the ter as and !hen

there is a possibilit$ that the ri"ht of an individual to life, libert$ and propert$ i"ht bediffused .= @eril$, !henever there is an imminent t"reat to t"e li)e , li$ert5 or (ro(ert5 o) an5 (erson inan$ proceedin" conducted b$ or under the auspices of the 7tate, his ri"ht to due process of la!,!hen de anded, ust not be i"nored.

A dan"er to the libert$ of the e2traditee, the private respondent, is real. Article + of the E2traditionTreat$ bet!een the 8overn ent of the Republic of the Philippines and the 8overn ent of the 9nited7tates of A erica provides that in case of ur"enc$, a Contractin" Part$ a$ re>uest the provisionalarrest of the person (rior to t"e (resentation o) t"e request )or e#tradition . 5 see i plicit in thisprovision that even after the re>uest for e2tradition is ade and before a petition for e2tradition isfiled !ith the courts, the possibilit$ of an arrest bein" ade on the basis of a ere evaluation b$ theE2ecutive on the re>uest for e2tradition b$ the forei"n 7tate cannot totall$ be discounted.

The conclusion reached b$ the aForit$, 5 hasten to add, does not ean that the E2ecutiveepart ent should be i peded in its evaluation of the e2tradition re>uest. The ri"ht of the e2traditee

to be furnished, upon re>uest, !ith a cop$ of the relevant docu ents and to file his co entthereon is not necessaril$ anathe a to the proceedin"s dul$ andated b$ the treat$ to be ade.

5 vote to den$ the petition.

APUNAN, 4 , separate concurrin" opinion4

5 vote to dis iss the petition, both on technical and substantial "rounds.

The petition in the case at bar raises one and onl$ issue, !hich is the validit$ of the Te porar$Restrainin" 'rder :TR'< issued b$ respondent (ud"e Ralph C. antion on Au"ust +, )+++ in CivilCase No. ++;+60?6. The TR' directed respondents in said case to&

. . . aintain the status quo b$ refrainin" fro co ittin" the acts co plained of4 froconductin" further proceedin"s in connection !ith the re>uest of the 9nited 7tates8overn ent for the e2tradition of the petitioner4 fro filin" the correspondin" Petition !iththe Re"ional Trial Court4 and fro perfor in" an$ act directed to the e2tradition of thepetitioner to the 9nited 7tates, )or a (eriod o) t ent5 da5s )rom t"e service on res(ondentso) t"is Order , pursuant to 7ection =, Rule =? of the )++ Rules of Court. ) :E phasis ours.ual protection a$ be raised.

5t is su""ested that after a petition for e2tradition is filed !ith a re"ional trial court, the person sou"htto be e2tradited a$ e2ercise all due process ri"hts. #e a$ then have access to all the records onthe basis of !hich the re>uest for e2tradition has been ade. #e a$ controvert that evidence and

raise all defenses he a$ consider appropriate. That, it is ur"ed, eets the due processre>uire ent.

But !h$ ust he !ait until the petition for e2tradition is filedL As succinctl$ e2pressed, if the ri"ht tonotice and hearin" is to serve its full purpose, then, it is clear that it ust be "ranted at a ti e !henthe deprivation can still be prevented. 6 ike the filin" of an infor ation in a cri inal case, the erefilin" of a petition for e2tradition causes i ediate i pair ent of the libert$ of the person sou"ht tobe e2tradited and a substantial curtail ent of other ri"hts. #is arrest a$ be i ediatel$ ordered b$the re"ional trial court. #e !ould be co pelled to face an open and public trial. #e !ill beconstrained to seek the assistance of counsel and incur other e2penses of liti"ation. The public e$e!ould be directed at hi !ith all the conco itant intrusions to his ri"ht to privac$. 3here the libert$of a person is at risk, and e2tradition strikes at the ver$ core of libert$, invocation of due processri"hts can never be too earl$.

U"SUM-"NG, 4 , concurrin" opinion4

As 5 concur in the result reached b$ the (onencia of (ustice Melo, a$ 5 Fust add $ odestobservations.

The hu an ri"hts of person, !hether citizen or alien, and the ri"hts of the accused "uaranteed in our Constitution should take precedence over treat$ ri"hts clai ed b$ a contractin" state. 7tatedother!ise, the constitutionall$ andated duties of our "overn ent to the individual deservepreferential consideration !hen the$ collide !ith its treat$ obli"ations to the "overn ent of anotherstate. This is so althou"h !e reco"nize treaties as a source of bindin" obli"ations under "enerall$accepted principles of international la! incorporated in our Constitution as part of the la! of the land.

-or this pri ordial reason, 5 vote to ENJ the petition.

Moreover, considerin" that the E2tradition Treat$ bet!een the 97A and Philippines appears ute onthe specific issue before us, the Court D in the e2ercise of its Fudicial po!er to find and state !hat
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt4


24/37

the la! is D has this rare opportunit$ of settin" a precedent that enhances respect for hu an ri"htsand stren"thens due process of la!.

As both aForit$ and dissentin" collea"ues in the Court !ill reco"nize, A erican authorities follo!t!o tracks in e2tradition proceedin"s& :)< the interstate practice !here, pursuant to statute, the stateE2ecutive upon de and furnishes the !ould be e2traditee or counsel copies of pertinent docu ents

as !ell as the re>uest for e2tradition4 and : < the international practice !here the E2ecutivedepart ent need not initiall$ "rant notice and hearin" at all. Rules of reciprocit$ and co it$,ho!ever, should not bar us fro appl$in" internationall$ no! !hat appears the ore reasonable andhu ane procedure, that is, the interstate practice a on" A ericans the selves. -or in this case the

A erican people should be a on" the ost interested parties.

Trul$, !hat private respondent is askin" our E2ecutive depart ent :notice, copies of docu ents, andthe opportunit$ to protect hi self at the earliest ti e a"ainst probable peril< does not, in $ vie!,violate our E2tradition Treat$ !ith the 97A. #is re>uest if "ranted au"urs !ell for transparenc$ ininterstate or inter"overn ental relations rather than secrec$ !hich s acks of edieval diplo ac$and the in>uisition discredited lon" a"o.

That private respondent is a -ilipino citizen is not decisive of the issue here, althou"h it is obviousl$pertinent. Even if he !ere a resident alien :other than A erican perhapsuestion of !h$ thereshould be an$ debate at all on a plea for protection of one%s libert$ !hich, if "ranted, !ill not result inan$ eanin"ful i pedi ent of th!artin" an$ state polic$ and obFectives.

5 see no reason !h$ respondent Mark (i enez, or other citizens not as controversial or talked about,should first be e2posed to the indi"nit$, e2pense, and an2iet$ of a public denunciation in court beforehe a$ be infor ed of !hat the contractin" states in an e2tradition treat$ have a"ainst hi . There isno >uestion that ever$thin" !hich respondent (i enez no! re>uests !ill be "iven to hi durin" trial.


25/37

Mr. (i enez is onl$ petitionin" that, at t"is sta'e , he should be infor ed !h$ he a$ be deportedfro his o n countr$.

5 see no ill effects !hich !ould arise if the e2tradition re>uest and supportin" docu ents are sho!nto hi no!, instead of later.

Petitioner 7ecretar$ of (ustice states that his action on the e2tradition re>uest and its supportin"docu ents !ill erel$ deter ine !hether or not the Philippines is co pl$in" !ith its treat$obli"ations. #e adds that, therefore, the constitutional ri"hts of an accused in all cri inalprosecutions are not available to the private respondent.

The (ul$ )*, )+++ repl$;letter fro petitioner states the reasons !h$ he is den$in" respondent(i enez%s re>uests. 5n short, the reasons are&

). 5n evaluatin" the docu ents, the epart ent erel$ deter ines !hether the proceduresand re>uire ents under the relevant la! and treat$ have been co plied !ith b$ theRe>uestin" 8overn ent. The constitutional ri"hts of the accused in all cri inal prosecutionsare, therefore, not available.

. The 9nited 7tates 8overn ent has re>uested the Philippine 8overn ent to preventunauthorized disclosure of certain "rand Fur$ infor ation.

*. The petitioner cannot hold in abe$ance proceedin"s in connection !ith an e2traditionre>uest. -or e2tradition to be an effective tool of cri inal la! enforce ent, re>uests forsurrender of accused or convicted persons ust be processed e2peditiousl$.

5 respectfull$ sub it that an$ apprehensions in the Court arisin" fro a denial of the petition D1breach of an international obli"ation, rupture of states relations, forfeiture of confidence, nationale barrass ent, and a plethora of other e>uall$ undesirable conse>uences1 D are ore illusor$than real. 'ur countr$ is not den$in" the e2tradition of a person !ho ust be e2tradited. Not one

provision of the e2tradition treat$ is violated. 5 cannot i a"ine the 9nited 7tates takin" issue over!hat, to it, !ould be a inor concession, perhaps a sli"ht dela$, accorded in the na e of hu anri"hts. 'n the other hand, the issue is funda ental in the Philippines. A citizen is invokin" theprotection, in the conte2t of a treat$ obli"ation, of ri"hts e2pressl$ "uaranteed b$ the PhilippineConstitution.

9ntil proved to be a valid subFect for e2tradition, a person is presu ed innocent or not covered b$the sanctions of either cri inal la! or international treat$. At an$ sta"e !here a still prospectivee2traditee onl$ seeks to kno! so that he can prepare and prove that he should not be e2tradited,there should be no conflict over the e2tension to hi of constitutional protections "uaranteed toaliens and citizens alike.

Petitioner cites as a reason for the denial of respondent%s re>uests, Article of the Treat$. Article enu erates the re>uired docu ents and establishes the procedures under !hich the docu entsshall be sub itted and ad itted as evidence. There is no specific provision on ho! that 7ecretar$ of -orei"n Affairs should conduct his evaluation. The 7ecretar$ of (ustice is not even in the picture atthis sta"e. 9nder petitioner%s theor$, silence in the treat$ over a citizen%s ri"hts durin" the evaluationsta"e is interpreted as deliberate e2clusion b$ the contractin" states of the ri"ht to kno!. 7ilence isinterpreted as the e2clusion of the ri"ht to a preli inar$ e2a ination or preli inar$ investi"ationprovided b$ the la!s of either one of the t!o states.


26/37

The ri"ht to be infor ed of char"es !hich a$ lead to court proceedin"s and result in a deprivationof libert$ is ordinaril$ routine. 5t is readil$ available to one a"ainst !ho the state%s coercive po!erhas alread$ been focused. 5 fail to see ho! silence can be interpreted as e2clusion. The treat$ issilent because at this sta"e, the preli inar$ procedure is still an internal atter. And !hen a la! ortreat$ is silent, it eans a ri"ht or privile"e a$ be "ranted. 5t is not the other !a$ around.

The second reason alle"in" the need for secrec$ and confidentialit$ is even less convincin". Thee2planation of petitioner is self;contradictor$. 'n one hand, petitioner asserts that the 9nited 7tates8overn ent re>uested the Philippine 8overn ent to prevent unauthorized disclosure of certaininfor ation. 'n the other hand, petitioner declares that the 9nited 7tates has alread$ securedorders fro concerned istrict Courts authorizin" the disclosure of the sa e "rand Fur$ infor ationto the Philippine 8overn ent and its la! enforce ent personnel.

'fficial per ission has been "iven. The 9nited 7tates has no cause to co plain about thedisclosure of infor ation furnished to the Philippines.

Moreover, ho! can "rand Fur$ infor ation and docu ents be considered confidential if the$ are"oin" to be introduced as evidence in adversel$ proceedin"s before a trial courtL The onl$ issue is

!hether or not Mr. (i enez should be e2tradited. #is innocence or "uilt of an$ cri e !ill bedeter ined in an A erican court. 5t is there !here prosecution strate"ies !ill be essential. 5f theContractin" 7tates believed in a total non;divul"in" of infor ation prior to court hearin"s, the$ !ouldhave so provided in the e2tradition treat$. A positive provision akin" certain ri"hts unavailablecannot be i plied fro silence.

5 cannot believe that the 9nited 7tates and the Philippines !ith identical constitutional provisions ondue process and basic ri"hts should sustain such a $opic vie! in a situation !here the "rant of ari"ht !ould not result in an$ serious setbacks to cri inal la! enforce ent.

5t is obvious that an$ prospective e2traditee !ants to kno! if his identit$ as the person indicated hasbeen established. Considerin" the penchant of Asians to adopt A erican na es !hen in A erica,the issue of !hether or not the prospective e2traditee trul$ is the person char"ed in the 9nited7tates beco es a valid >uestion. 5t is not onl$ identit$ of the person !hich is involved. The cri es

ust also be un istakabl$ identified and their essential ele ents clearl$ stated.

There are other preli inar$ atters in !hich respondent is interested. 5 see nothin" in our la!s or inthe Treat$ !hich prohibits the prospective e2traditee fro kno!in" until after the start of trial !hether or not the e2tradition treat$ applies to hi .

Paraphrasin" &asmin vs 0oncan , ) Phil. )04 Trocio vs Manta , ))? 7CRA 6) :)+6)


27/37

5n the first place, an$ assistance !hich the evaluatin" official a$ "et fro the participation ofrespondent a$ !ell point out deficiencies and insufficiencies in the e2tradition docu ents. 5t !ouldincur "reater dela$s if these are discovered onl$ durin" court trial. 'n the other hand, if, frorespondent%s participation, the evaluatin" official discovers a case of istaken identit$, insufficientpleadin"s, inade>uate co plaints, or an$ ruinous shortco in", there !ould be no dela$s durin" trial.

An unnecessar$ trial !ith all its co plications !ould be avoided.

The ri"ht to be infor ed is related to the constitutional ri"ht to a speed$ trial. The constitutional"uarantee e2tends to the speed$ disposition of cases before all >uasi;Fudicial and ad inistrativebodies :Constitution, Art. 555, 7ec. )0uests for e2tradition. 5 understand that this is truer in the 9nited7tates than in other countries. Proposed e2traditees are "iven ever$ le"al protection available frothe A erican Fustice s$ste before the$ are e2tradited. 3e serve under a "overn ent of li itedpo!ers and inalienable ri"hts. #ence, this concurrence.

PUNO, 4 , dissentin" opinion4

5f the case at bar !as strictl$ a cri inal case !hich involves alone the ri"ht of an accused to dueprocess, 5 !ould have co;si"ned the (onencia of our estee ed collea"ue, Mr. (ustice (ose A.R.Melo, !ithout takin" half a pause. 0ut t"e case at $ar does not involve t"e 'uilt or innocence o) anaccused $ut t"e inter(retation o) an e#tradition treat5 "ere at sta>e is our 'overnment?sinternational o$li'ation to surrender to a )orei'n state a citi2en o) its o n so "e can $e tried )or analle'ed o))ense committed it"in t"at 6urisdiction . The issues are of first i pression and the aForit$opinion dan"erousl$ takes us to unkno!n shoals in constitutional and international la!s, hence thisdissentin" opinion.

E#tradition is a !ell;defined concept and is ore a proble in international la!. 5t is the 1process b$!hich persons char"ed !ith or convicted of cri e a"ainst the la! of a 7tate and found in a forei"n7tate are returned b$ the latter to the for er for trial or punish ent. 5t a((lies to those !ho are

erel$ char"ed !ith an offense but have not been brou"ht to trial4 to those !ho have been tried andconvicted and have subse>uentl$ escaped fro custod$4 and those !ho have been convicted inabsentia. 5t does not a((l5 to persons erel$ suspected of havin" co itted an offense but a"ainst!ho no char"e has been laid or to a person !hose presence is desired as a !itness or for obtainin"or enforcin" a civil Fud" ent.1 ) The de)inition covers t"e (rivate res(ondent !ho is char"ed !ith t!o: < counts of conspirac$ to co it offense or to defraud the 9nited 7tates, four :6< counts of atte ptto evade or defeat ta2, t!o : < counts of fraud b$ !ire, radio or television, si2 :0< counts of falsestate ents or entries and thirt$;three :**< counts of election contributions in the na e of another.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt1


28/37

There is an outstandin" !arrant of arrest a"ainst the private respondent issued b$ the 97 istrictCourt, 7outhern istrict of -lorida.

A brief revie! of the histor$ of e2tradition la! !ill illu ine our labor. Possibl$ the ost authoritativeco entator on e2tradition toda$, M. Cherif Bassiouni, divides the histor$ of e2tradition into four :6uences, so eti es

!ith life and death si"nificance to the nation especiall$ in ti es of !ar. It can onl5 $e entrusted tot"at de(artment o) 'overnment "ic" can act on t"e $asis o) t"e $est availa$le in)ormation and candecide it" decisiveness . Be$ond debate, the President is the sin"le ost po!erful official in ourland for 7ection ) of Article @55 provides that 1the e2ecutive po!er shall be vested in the President ofthe Philippines,1 !hereas 7ection ) of Article @5 states that 1the le"islative po!er shall be vested inthe Con"ress of the Philippines !hich shall consist of a 7enate and a #ouse of Representatives . . .e2cept to the e2tent reserved to the people b$ the provision on initiative and referendu ,1 !hile7ection ) of Article @555 provides that 1Fudicial po!er shall be vested in one 7upre e Court and insuch lo!er courts as a$ be established b$ la!.1 T"us , e can see t"at e#ecutive (o er is vestedin t"e %resident alone "ereas le'islative and 6udicial (o ers are s"ared and scattered . 5t is also thePresident !ho possesses the ost co prehensive and the ost confidential infor ation aboutforei"n countries for our diplo atic and consular officials re"ularl$ brief hi on eanin"ful events allover the !orld. #e has also unli ited access to ultra;sensitive ilitar$ intelli"ence data. )6 5n fine, thepresidential role in forei"n affairs is do inant and t"e %resident is traditionall5 accorded a iderde'ree o) discretion in t"e conduct o) )orei'n a))airs . The re"ularit$, na$, validit$ of his actions areadFud"ed under less strin'ent standards , lest their Fudicial repudiation lead to breach of aninternational obli"ation, rupture of state relations, forfeiture of confidence, national e barrass entand a plethora of other proble s !ith e>uall$ undesirable conse>uences.

These are so e of the dominant (olic5 considerations in international la! that the Court ustbalance a"ainst the clai of the private respondent that he has a ri"ht to be "iven the e2traditiondocu ents a"ainst hi and to co ent thereon even !hile the$ are still at the evaluation sta'e b$
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt14


30/37

the petitioner Secretar5 o) 4ustice , an alter e'o o) t"e %resident . The delicate >uestions of "atconstitutional ri'"ts and to !hat de'ree the$ can be clai ed b$ an e2traditee do not ad it of eas$ans!ers and have resulted in discrete a((roac"es the !orld over .)= 'n one end of the pole is the

ore li$eral European approach. The European Court of #u an Ri"hts e braces the vie! that ane2traditee is entitled to the benefit of all relevant provisions of the European Convention for theProtection of #u an Ri"hts and -unda ental -reedo s. 5t has held that 1. . . in so far as a easure

of the e2tradition has conse>uences adversel$ affectin" the enFo$ ent of a convention ri"ht, it a$,assu in" that the conse>uences are not too re ote, attract the obli"ations of a Contractin" 7tateunder the relevant convention "uarantee.1 )0 At the other end of the pole is the more cautiousa((roac" of the various Courts of Appeal in the 9nited 7tates. These courts have been moreconservative in li"ht of the principle of separation of po!ers and their faith in the presu ptive validit$of e2ecutive decisions. B$ and lar"e, the$ adhere to the rule o) non-inquir5 under !hichthe e#traditin' court re)uses to e2a ine the re>uestin" countr$%s cri inal Fustice s$ste or consideralle"ations that the e2traditee !ill be istreated or denied a fair trial in that countr$. )

The case at bar, 5 respectfull$ sub it, does not involve an irreconcila$le con)lict bet!een the RP;97E2tradition Treat$ and our Constitution !here !e have to choose one over the other. Rather, it callsfor a "armoni2ation bet!een said treat$ and our Constitution. To achieve this desirable obFective, theCourt s"ould consider "et"er t"e constitutional ri'"ts invo>ed $5 t"e (rivate res(ondent "ave trul5$een violated and even assumin' so , "et"er "e ill $e denied )undamental )airness . It is onl5

"en t"eir violation ill destro5 t"e res(ondent?s ri'"t to )undamental )airness t"at "is constitutionalclaims s"ould $e 'iven (rimac5 .

8iven this $alancin' a((roac" , it is $ hu ble sub ission that considerin" all the facts and facetsof the case, t"e (rivate res(ondent "as not (roved entitlement to t"e ri'"t "e is claimin' .The ma6orit5 "olds that the Constitution, the RP;97 e2tradition and P. . No. )/0+ do not (ro"i$itres(ondent?s claims , "ence , it s"ould $e allo ed . This is too si plistic an approach. Ri'"ts do notnecessaril5 arise )rom a vacuum . 7ilence of the la! can even ean an i plied denial of a ri"ht. Also,constitutional liti"ations do not al!a$s involve a clear cut choice bet!een ri"ht and !ron".7o eti es, the$ involve a difficult choice bet!een ri"ht a"ainst ri"ht. 5n these situations, there isneed to balance the contendin" ri"hts and pri ac$ is "iven to the ri"ht that !ill serve the interest of

the nation at that particular ti e. 5n such instances, the less com(ellin' ri'"t is su$6ected to so)trestraint but !ithout s otherin" its essence. Proceedin" fro this pre ise of relativism o) ri'"ts , 5venture the vie! that even assu in" ar'uendo respondent%s !eak clai , still, t"e de'ree o) denial o)

(rivate res(ondent?s ri'"ts to due (rocess and to in)ormation is too sli'"t to arrant t"e inter(ositiono) 6udicial (o er . As ad itted in the (onencia itself, an e2tradition proceedin" is sui 'eneris . 5t is,thus, futile to deter ine !hat it is. 3"at is certain is that it is not a criminal (roceedin' !here there isan accused !ho clai the entire arra$ of ri"hts "uaranteed b$ the Bill of Ri"hts. et it be stressedthat in an e#tradition (roceedin' , t"ere is no accused and t"e 'uilt or innocence o) t"e e#traditee ill not $e (assed u(on $5 our e#ecutive o))icials nor $5 t"e e#tradition 6ud'e . #ence, constitutionalri"hts that are onl$ relevant do deter ine the "uilt or innocence of an accused cannot be invoked b$an e2traditee. 5ndeed, an e2tradition proceedin" is summar5 in nature !hich is untrue of cri inalproceedin"s. )? Even the rules o) evidence are di))erent in an e2tradition proceedin". Ad ission ofevidence is less strin"ent, a"ain because the "uilt of the e2traditee is not under liti"ation. )+ It is notonl5 t"e qualit5 $ut even t"e quantum o) evidence in e#tradition (roceedin' is di))erent . 5n a cri inalcase, an accused can onl$ be convicted b$ (roo) $e5ond reasona$le dou$t . / 5n an e2traditionproceedin", an e2traditee can be ordered e2tradited 1upon sho!in" of the e2isted of a (rima)acie case.1 ) 5f ore need be said, the nature of an e2tradition decision is different fro a Fudicialdecision !hose finalit$ cannot be chan"ed b$ e2ecutive fiat. 'ur courts a$ hold an individuale2traditable but the ultimate decision to e2tradite the individual lies in the hands of the E2ecutive.7ection *, Article * of the RP;97 E2tradition Treat$ specificall$ provides that 1e2tradition shall not be"ranted if the e2ecutive authorit$ of the Re>uested 7tate deter ined that the re>uest !as politicall$

otivated, or that the offense is a ilitar$ offense !hich is not punishable under non; ilitar$ penal
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt22


31/37

le"islation.1 5n the 9nited 7tates, the 7ecretar$ of 7tate e2ercises this ulti ate po!er and isconceded considerable discretion. #e balances the e>uities of the case and the de ands of thenation%s forei"n relations. * 5n su , he is not straitFacketed b$ strict le"al considerations like anordinar$ court.

The t5(e o) issue liti"ated in e2tradition proceedin"s !hich does not touch on the "uilt or innocence

of the e2traditee, the limited nature o) t"e e#tradition (roceedin' , the availa$ilit5 o) adequateremedies in favor of the e2traditee, and the traditional lee a5 'iven to t"e E#ecutive in the conductof forei"n affairs have co pelled courts to put a "i'" t"res"old before considerin" clai s ofindividuals that enforce ent of an e2tradition treat$ !ill violate their constitutional ri"hts.E2e plif$in" such approach is the Su(reme Court o) Canada !hich has adopted a "i'"l5 de)erentialstandard t"at em("asi2es international comit5 and t"e e#ecutive?s e#(erience in internationalmatters . 6 5t continues to den$ Canada%s charter protection to e#traditees unless t"e violation can $econsidered s"oc>in' to t"e conscience .

5n the case, at bar and !ith due respect, the (onencia inflates !ith too uch si"nificance the t"reatto li$ert5 o) t"e (rivate res(ondent to prop us its thesis that his constitutional ri"hts to due processand access to infor ation ust i ediatel$ be vindicated. Alle"edl$, respondent (i enez stands

in dan'er o) (rovisional arrest , hence, the need for hi to be i ediatel$ furnished copies ofdocu ents acco pan$in" the re>uest for his e2tradition. Res(ondent?s )ear o) (rovisional arrest isnot real . 5t is a self;i a"ined fear for the realities on the "round sho! that the 9nited 7tatesauthorities have not anifested an$ desire to re>uest for his arrest. 'n the contrar$, the$ filed thee2tradition re>uest throu"h the re"ular channel and, even !ith the pendenc$ of the case at bar, the$have not oved for respondent%s arrest on the "round of probable dela$ in the proceedin"s. To $esure , t"e issue o) "et"er res(ondent 4imene2 ill $e (rovisionall5 arrested is no moot . 9nder7ection ) of Article + of the RP;97 E2tradition Treat$, in relation to 7ection /:a< of P No. )/0+, the"eneral principle is enunciated that a re>uest for provisional arrest ust be ade (endin' recei(t o)t"e request )or e#tradition . B$ filin" the re>uest for e2tradition, the 97 authorities have i plicitl$decided not to ove for respondent%s provisional arrest. But ore i portant, a request )orres(ondent?s arrest does not mean "e ill $e t"e victim o) an ar$itrar5 arrest . &e ill $e 'iven due

(rocess $e)ore "e can $e arrested . Article + of the treat$ provides&

PR'@575'NA ARRE7T

). 5n case of ur"enc$, a Contractin" Part$ a$ re>uest the provisional arrest of the personsou"ht pendin" presentation of the re>uest for e2tradition. A re>uest for provisional arrest

a$ be trans itted throu"h the diplo atic channel or directl$ bet!een the Philippineepart ent of (ustice and the 9nited 7tates epart ent of (ustice.

. The application for provisional arrest shall contain&

a< a description of the person sou"ht4

b< the location of the person sou"ht, if kno!n4

c< a brief state ents of the facts of the case, includin", if possible, the ti e andlocation of the offense4

d< a description of the la!s violated4
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt24


32/37

e< a state ent of the e2istence of a !arrant of a !arrant of arrest or findin" of "uilt or Fud" ent of conviction a"ainst the person sou"ht4 and

f< a state ent that a re>uest for e2tradition for the person sou"ht !ill follo!.

*. The Re>uestin" 7tate shall be notified !ithout dela$ of the disposition of its applicationand the reasons for an$ denial.

6. A person !ho is provisionall$ arrested a$ be dischar"ed fro custod$ upon thee2piration of si2t$ :0/< da$s fro the date of arrest pursuant to this Treat$ if the e2ecutiveauthorit$ of the Re>uested 7tate has not received the for al re>uest for e2tradition and thesupportin" docu ents re>uired in Article .

5n relation to the above, 7ection / of P. . No. )/0+ provides&

7ec. /. %rovisional Arrest . D :a< 5n case of ur"enc$, the re>uestin" state a$, pursuant tothe relevant treat$ or convention and !hile the sa e re ains in force, re>uest for theprovisional arrest of the accused, pendin" receipt of the re>uest for e2tradition ade in

accordance !ith 7ection 6 of this ecree.

:b< A re>uest for provisional arrest shall be sent to the irector of the National Bureau of5nvesti"ation, Manila, either throu"h the diplo atic channels or direct b$ post or tele"raph.

:c< T"e Director o) t"e National 0ureau o) Investi'ation or an5 o))icial actin' on "is $e"al)s"all u(on recei(t o) t"e request immediatel5 secure a arrant )or t"e (rovisional arrest o)t"e accused )rom t"e (residin' 6ud'e o) t"e Court o) /irst Instance o) t"e (rovince or cit5"avin' 6urisdiction o) t"e (lace, "o s"all issue t"e arrant )or t"e (rovisional arrest o) t"eaccused . The irector of the National Bureau of 5nvesti"ation throu"h the 7ecretar$ of-orei"n Affairs shall infor the re>uestin" state of the result of its re>uest.

:d< 5f !ithin a period of / da$s after the provisional arrest, the 7ecretar$ of -orei"n Affairshas not received the re>uest for e2tradition and the docu ents entioned in 7ection 6 ofthis ecree, the accused shall be released fro custod$.

T"e due (rocess (rotection o) t"e (rivate-res(ondent a'ainst ar$itrar5 arrest is ritten in c5rillicletters in t"ese t o @! related (rovisions . 5t is self;evident under these provisions that a re>uest forprovisional arrest does not ean it !ill be "ranted i(so )acto . The re>uest ust co pl$ !ith certainre>uire ents. 5t ust be based on an 1ur"ent1 factor. This is subFect to verification and evaluation b$our e2ecutive authorities. The re>uest can be denied if not based on a real e2i"enc$ of if thesupportin" docu ents are insufficient. The protection of the respondent a"ainst arbitrar$ provisionalarrest does not sto( on t"e administrative level . -or even if the irector of the National Bureau of5nvesti"ation a"rees !ith the re>uest for the provisional arrest of the respondent, still he has to appl$for a 6udicial arrant fro the 1presidin" Fud"e of the Court of -irst 5nstance :no! RTC< of theprovince of cit$ havin" Furisdiction of the place. . . . .1 5t is a 6ud'e !ho !ill issue a !arrant for theprovisional arrest of the respondent. The Fud"e has co pl$ !ith 7ection , Article 555 of theConstitution !hich provides that 1no . . . !arrant of arrest shall issue e2cept upon probable cause tobe deter ined personall$ b$ the Fud"e after e2a ination under oath or affir ation of the co plainantand the !itnesses he a$ produce, and particularl$ describin" the . . . persons or thin"s to beseized.1 T"e messa'e t"at lea(s to t"e e5e is t"at com(liance it" t"is requirements (recludes an5ar$itrar5 arrest .


33/37

5n li"ht of all these considerations, 5 respectfull$ sub it that den$in" respondent%s constitutionalclai to be furnished all docu ents relatin" to the re>uest for his e2tradition b$ the 97 authoritiesdurin" their evaluation sta'e !ill not subvert his ri"ht to )undamental )airness . It s"ould $e stressedt"at t"is is not a case "ere t"e res(ondent ill not $e 'iven an o((ortunit5 to >no t"e $asis o) t"erequest )or "is e#tradition . 5n truth, and contrar$ to the i pression of the aForit$, % .D. No . * B)i#es t"e s(eci)ic time !hen he !ill be "iven the papers constitutin" the basis for his e2tradition. The

ti e is !hen he is su oned b$ the e2tradition court and re>uired to ans!er the petition fore2tradition. Thus, 7ection 0 of P. . No. )/0+ provides&

7ec. 0. Issuance o) Summons 4Tem(orar5 Arrest 4&earin' , Service o) Notices . D :) constitutional claims "ic" in no a5 amount to denial o) )undamental )airness .


34/37

At $ottom , t"is case involves t"e res(ect t"at courts s"ould accord to t"e E#ecutive t"at concludedt"e R%-US E#tradition Treat5 in t"e conduct o) our )orei'n a))airs . As earl$ as )?//, the le"endar$(ohn Marshall, then a con"ress an, has opined that the po!er to e2tradite pursuant to a treat$ restsin the e2ecutive branch as part of its po!er to conduct forei"n affairs. 0 Courts have validated thisfor!ard;lookin" opinion in a catena of unbroken cases. The$ defer to the Fud" ent of the E2ecutiveon the necessities of our forei"n affairs and on its vie! of the re>uire ents of international co it$.

The de)erential attitude is dictated b$ the robust realit$ that of the three "reat branches of our"overn ent, it is t"e E#ecutive t"at is most quali)ied to 'uide t"e s"i( o) t"e state on t"e >no n andun>no n continents o) )orei'n relations . 5t is also co pelled b$ considerations of the principleof se(aration o) (o ers for the Constitution has clearl$ allocated the po!er to conduct our forei"naffairs to the E2ecutive. I res(ect)ull5 su$mit t"at t"e ma6orit5 decision "as ea>ened t"e E#ecutive$5 allo in' not"in' less t"an an unconstitutional "ead$utt on t"e (o er o) t"e E#ecutive to conductour )orei'n a))airs . T"e ma6orit5 s"ould $e cautions in involvin' t"is Court in t"e conduct o) t"enation?s )orei'n relations "ere t"e inviola$le rule dictated $5 necessit5 is t"at t"e nation s"oulds(ea> it" one voice . 3e s"ould not overloo> t"e realit5 t"at courts $5 t"eir nature , are ill-equi((edto )ull5 com(re"end t"e )orei'n (olic5 dimension o) a treat5 , some o) "ic" are "idden in s"ado sand sil"ouettes .

I vote to 'rant t"e (etition .

PANGAN"-AN, 4 , dissentin" opinion4

3ith due respect, 5 dissent.

The ain issue before us is !hether Private Respondent Mark B. (i enez is entitled to the dueprocess ri"hts of notice and hearin" durin" the preli inar$ or evaluation sta"e of the e2traditionproceedin" a"ainst hi .

T o Sta'ed in E#tradition

There are essentiall$ t!o sta"es in e2tradition proceedin"s& :)< the preli inar$ or evaluation sta"e,!hereb$ the e2ecutive authorit$ of the re>uested state ascertains !hether the e2tradition re>uest issupported b$ the docu ents and infor ation re>uired under the E2tradition Treat$4 and : < thee2tradition hearin", !hereb$ the petition for e2tradition is heard before a court of Fustice, !hichdeter ines !hether the accused should be e2tradited.

The instant petition refers onl$ to the first sta"e. Private respondent clai s that he has a ri"ht to benotified and to be heard at this earl$ sta"e. #o!ever, even the (onencia ad its that neither the RP;97 E2tradition Treat$ nor P )/0+ :the Philippine E2tradition a!< e2pressl$ re>uires the Philippine"overn ent, upon receipt of the re>uest for e2tradition, to "ive copies thereof and its supportin"docu ents to the prospective e2traditee, uch less to "ive hi an opportunit$ to be heard prior tothe filin" of the petition in court.

Notabl$, international e2tradition proceedin"s in the 9nited 7tates do not include the "rant b$ thee2ecutive authorit$ of notice and hearin" to the prospective e2traditee at this initial sta"e. 5t is the

Fud"e or a"istrate !ho is authorized to issue a !arrant of arrest and to hold a hearin" to considerthe evidence sub itted in support of the e2tradition re>uest. 5n contrast, in interstate rendition, the"overnor ust, upon de and, furnish the fu"itive or his attorne$ copies of the re>uest and its


35/37

acco pan$in" docu ents, pursuant to statutor$ provisions. ) 5n the Philippines, there is no si ilarstatutor$ provision.

Evaluation Sta'e Essentiall5 Ministerial

The evaluation sta"e si pl$ involves the ascertain ent b$ the forei"n affairs secretar$ of !hetherthe e2tradition re>uest is acco panied b$ the docu ents stated in para"raphs and *, Article ofthe Treat$, relatin" to the identit$ and the probable location of the fu"itive4 the facts of the offenseand the procedural histor$ of the case4 provisions of the la! describin" the essential ele ents of theoffense char"ed and the punish ent therefor4 its prescriptive period4 such evidence as !ouldprovide probable cause for the arrest and the co ittal for trial of the fu"itive4 and copies of the!arrant or order of arrest and char"in" docu ent. The forei"n affairs secretar$ also sees to it thatthese acco pan$in" docu ents have been certified b$ the principal diplo atic or consular officer ofthe Philippines in the 9nited 7tates, and that the$ are in En"lish lan"ua"e or have En"lishtranslations. Pursuant to Article * of the Treat$, he also deter ines !hether the re>uest is politicall$

otivated, and !hether the offense char"ed is a ilitar$ offense not punishable under non; ilitar$penal le"islation.

9pon a findin" of the secretar$ of forei"n affairs that the e2tradition re>uest and its supportin"docu ents are sufficient and co plete in for and substance, he shall deliver the sa e to the Fustice secretar$, !ho shall i ediatel$ desi"nate and authorize an attorne$ in his office to takechar"e of the case. The la!$er desi"nated shall then file a !ritten petition !ith the proper re"ionaltrial court, !ith a pra$er that the court take the e2tradition re>uest under consideration. *

3"en t"e Ri'"t to Notice and &earin' 0ecomes Availa$le

Accordin" to private Respondent (i enez, his ri"ht to due process durin" the preli inar$ sta"ee anates fro our Constitution, particularl$ 7ection ), Article 555 thereof, !hich provides&

No person shall be deprived of life, libert$ or propert$ !ithout due process of la!.

#e clai s that this ri"ht arises i ediatel$, because of the possibilit$ that he a$ be provisionall$arrested pursuant to Article + of the RP;97 Treat$, !hich reads&

5n case of ur"enc$, a Contractin" Part$ a$ re>uest the provisional arrest of the personsou"ht pendin" presentation of the re>uest for e2tradition. A re>uest for provisional arrest

a$ be trans itted throu"h the diplo atic channel or directl$ bet!een the Philippineepart ent of (ustice and the 9nited 7tates epart ent of (ustice.

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

(ustice Melo%s (onencia supports private respondent%s contention. 5t states that there are t!o

occasions !herein the prospective e2traditee a$ be deprived of libert$& :)< in case of a provisionalarrest pendin" the sub ission of the e2tradition re>uest and : < his te porar$ arrest durin" thependenc$ of the e2tradition petition in court. 6 The second instance is not in issue here, because nopetition has $et been filed in court.

#o!ever, the above;>uoted Article + on provisional arrest is not auto aticall$ operative at all ti es,and in enforce ent does not depend solel$ on the discretion of the re>uested state. -ro the!ordin"s of the provision itself, there are at least three re>uisites& :)< there ust be an ur"enc$, and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt4


36/37

: < there is a correspondin" re>uest :*< !hich ust be ade prior to the presentation of the re>uestfor e2tradition.

5n the instant case, there appears to be no ur"enc$ characterizin" the nature of the e2tradition ofprivate respondent. Petitioner does not clai an$ such ur"enc$. There is no re>uest fro the 9nited7tates for the provisional arrest of Mark (i enez either. And the secretar$ of Fustice states durin" the

'ral Ar"u ent that he had no intention of appl$in" for the provisional arrest of privaterespondent .= -inall$, the for al re>uest for e2tradition has alread$ been ade4 therefore, provisionalarrest is not likel$, as it should reall$ co e $e)ore the e2tradition re>uest. 0

Mar> 4imene2 Not in 4eo(ard5 o) Arrest

9nder the outlined facts of this case, there is no open door for the application of Article +, contrar$ tothe apprehension of private respondent. 5n other !ords, there is no actual dan"er that (i enez !illbe provisionall$ arrested or deprived of his libert$. There is as $et no threat that his ri"hts !ould betra pled upon, pendin" the filin" in court of the petition for his e2tradition. #ence, there is nosubstantial "ain to be achieved in re>uirin" the forei"n affairs :or Fustice< secretar$ to notif$ and hear hi durin" the (reliminar5 sta'e , !hich basicall$ involves onl$ the e2ercise of the inisterial po!er

of checkin" the sufficienc$ of the docu ents attached to the e2tradition re>uest.

5t ust be borne in ind that durin" the preli inar$ sta"e, the forei"n affairs secretar$%sdeter ination of !hether the offense char"ed is e2traditable or politicall$ otivated is

erel$ (reliminar5 . The sa e issue !ill be resolved b$ the trial court. Moreover, it is also the po!erand the dut$ of the court, not the e2ecutive authorit$, to deter ine !hether there is sufficientevidence to establish probable cause that the e2traditee co itted the cri es char"ed. ? Thesufficienc$ of the evidence of cri inalit$ is to be deter ined based on the la!s of the re>uestedstate. + Private Respondent (i enez !ill, therefore, definitel$ have his full opportunit$ before thecourt, in case an e2tradition petition !ill indeed be filed, to be heard on all issues includin" thesufficienc$ of the docu ents supportin" the e2tradition re>uest. )/

Private respondent insists that the 9nited 7tates a$ still re>uest his provisional arrest at an$ ti e.That is purel$ speculative. 5t is ele entar$ that this Court does not declare Fud" ents or "rant reliefsbased on speculations, sur ises or conFectures.

5n an$ event, even "rantin" that the arrest of (i enez is sou"ht at an$ ti e despite the assurance ofthe Fustice secretar$ that no such easure !ill be undertaken, our local la!s and rules of procedurerespectin" the issuance of a !arrant of arrest !ill "overn, there bein" no specific provision under theE2tradition Treat$ b$ !hich such !arrant should issue. Therefore, (i enez !ill be entitled to all theri"hts accorded b$ the Constitution and the la!s to an$ person !hose arrest is bein" sou"ht. *+ ("i* n.t

The ri"ht of one state to de and fro another the return of an alle"ed fu"itive fro Fustice and thecorrelative dut$ to surrender the fu"itive to the de andin" countr$ e2ist onl$ !hen created b$ atreat$ bet!een the t!o countries. 5nternational la! does not re>uire the voluntar$ surrender of afu"itive to a forei"n "overn ent, absent an$ treat$ stipulation re>uirin" it. )) 3hen such a treat$ doese2ist, as bet!een the Philippines and the 9nited 7tates, it ust be presu ed that the contractin"states perfor their obli"ations under it !ith u$errimae )idei , treat$ obli"ations bein" essentiall$characterized internationall$ b$ co it$ and utual respect.

T"e Need )or Res(ondent 4imene2 to /ace C"ar'es in t"e US

'ne final point. Private respondent also clai s that fro the ti e the secretar$ of forei"n affairs"ave due course to the re>uest for his e2tradition, incalculable preFudice has been brou"ht upon hi .
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt11


37/37

And because of the oral inFur$ caused, he should be "iven the opportunit$ at the earliest possibleti e to stop his e2tradition. 5 believe that an$ oral inFur$ suffered b$ private respondent had notbeen caused b$ the ere processin" of the e2tradition re>uest. And it !ill not cease erel$ b$"rantin" hi the opportunit$ to be heard b$ the e2ecutive authorit$. The concrete char"es that hehas alle"edl$ co itted certain offenses alread$ e2ist. These char"es have been filed in the 9nited7tates and are part of public and official records there. Assu in" the e2istence of oral inFur$, the

onl$ eans b$ !hich he can restore his "ood reputation is to prove before the proper Fudicialauthorities in the 97 that the char"es a"ainst hi are unfounded. 7uch restoration cannot beacco plished b$ si pl$ contendin" that the docu ents supportin" the re>uest for his e2tradition areinsufficient.

Conclusion

5n the conte2t of the factual ilieu of private respondent, there is reall$ no threat of an$ deprivationof his libert$ at the present sta"e of the e2tradition process. #ence, the constitutional ri"ht to dueprocess D particularl$ the ri"ht to be heard D finds no application. To "rant private respondent%sre>uest for copies of the e2tradition docu ents and for an opportunit$ to co ent thereon !illconstitute 1over;due process1 and unnecessaril$ dela$ the proceedin"s.

3#ERE-'RE, 5 vote to "rant the Petition.

7. Sec. of Justice vs Lantion - FT

Documents

Transcript of 7. Sec. of Justice vs Lantion - FT