Extrat Procedure

8/18/2019 Extrat Procedure

1/37

Today is Thursday, July 11, 2013

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME 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-à-vis the vast and over!helin" po!ers of

"overnent. #is onl$ "uarantee a"ainst oppression and t$rann$ are his fundaental liberties under the Bill of

Ri"hts !hich shield hi in ties of need. The Court is no! called to decide !hether to uphold a citizen%s basic

due process ri"hts, or the "overnent%s ironclad duties under a treat$. The bu"le sounds and this Court ust once

a"ain act as the faithful "uardian of the fundaental !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 Coitted Cries in a -orei"n Countr$1. The ecree is

founded on& the doctrine of incorporation under the Constitution4 the utual concern for the suppression of

crie both in the state !here it !as coitted and the state !here the criinal a$ have escaped4 the

e2tradition treat$ !ith the Republic of 5ndonesia and the intention of the Philippines to enter into siilar treaties

!ith other interested countries4 and the need for rules to "uide the e2ecutive departent and the courts in the

proper ipleentation of said treaties.

'n Noveber )*, )++6, then 7ecretar$ of (ustice -ranklin M. rilon, representin" the 8overnent of the

Republic of the Philippines, si"ned in Manila the 1E2tradition Treat$ Bet!een the 8overnent of the Republic

of the Philippines and the 8overnent of the 9nited 7tates of Aerica1 :hereinafter referred to as the RP;97

E2tradition Treat$


2/37

provisions of the 9nited 7tates Code :97Cuest fro the 9.7.

8overnent, as !ell as all docuents and papers subitted there!ith4 and that he be "iven aple tie to

coent on the re>uest after he shall have received copies of the re>uested papers. Private respondent alsore>uested that the proceedin"s on the atter be held in abe$ance in the eantie.

ater, private respondent re>uested that preliinar$, he be "iven at least a cop$ of, or access to, the re>uest of

the 9nited 7tates 8overnent, and after receivin" a cop$ of the iploatic Note, a period of tie to aplif$ 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 the follo!in" reasons&

). 3e find it preature to furnish $ou !ith copies of the e2tradition re>uest and supportin" docuents

fro the 9nited 7tates 8overnent, pendin" evaluation b$ this epartent of the sufficienc$ of thee2tradition docuents subitted in accordance !ith the provisions of the e2tradition treat$ and our

e2tradition la!. Article of the E2tradition Treat$ bet!een the Philippines and the 9nited 7tates

enuerates the docuentar$ re>uireents and establishes the procedures under !hich the docuents

subitted shall be received and aditted as evidence. Evidentiar$ re>uireents under our doestic la!

are also set forth in 7ection 6 of P.. No. )/0+.

Evaluation b$ this epartent of the aforeentioned docuents is not a preliinar$ investi"ation nor

akin to preliinar$ investi"ation of criinal cases. 3e erel$ deterine !hether the procedures and

re>uireents under the relevant la! and treat$ have been coplied !ith b$ the Re>uestin" 8overnent.

The constitutionall$ "uaranteed ri"hts of the accused in all criinal prosecutions are therefore not

available.

5t is onl$ after the filin" of the petition for e2tradition !hen the person sou"ht to be e2tradited !ill be


3/37

furnished b$ the court !ith copies of the petition, re>uest and e2tradition docuents and this epartent

!ill not pose an$ obFection to a re>uest for aple tie to evaluate said docuents.

. The foral re>uest for e2tradition of the 9nited 7tates contains "rand Fur$ inforation and docuents

obtained throu"h "rand Fur$ process covered b$ strict secrec$ rules under 9nited 7tates la!. The 9nited

7tates had to secure orders fro the concerned istrict Courts authorizin" the 9nited 7tates to disclose

certain "rand Fur$ inforation to Philippine "overnent and la! enforceent personnel for the purposeof e2tradition of Mr. (ienez. An$ further disclosure of the said inforation is not authorized b$ the

9nited 7tates istrict Courts. 5n this particular e2tradition re>uest the 9nited 7tates 8overnent

re>uested the Philippine 8overnent to prevent unauthorized disclosure of the subFect inforation. This

epartent%s denial of $our re>uest is consistent !ith Article of the RP;97 E2tradition Treat$ !hich

provides that the Philippine 8overnent ust represent the interests of the 9nited 7tates in an$

proceedin"s arisin" out of a re>uest for e2tradition. The epartent of (ustice under P.. No. )/0+ is the

counsel of the forei"n "overnents in all e2tradition re>uests.

*. This epartent is not in a position to hold in abe$ance proceedin"s in connection !ith an e2tradition

re>uest. Article 0 of the @ienna Convention on the a! of Treaties, to !hich !e are a part$ provides

that 1Ever$ treat$ in force is bindin" upon the parties to it and ust be perfored b$ the in "oodfaith1. E2tradition is a tool of criinal la! enforceent and to be effective, re>uests for e2tradition or

surrender of accused or convicted persons ust be processed e2peditiousl$.

:pp. ;?, Rollo.<

7uch !as the state of affairs !hen, on Au"ust 0, )+++, private respondent filed !ith the Re"ional Trial Court of

the National Capital (udicial Re"ion a petition a"ainst the 7ecretar$ of (ustice, the 7ecretar$ of -orei"n Affairs,

and the irector of the National Bureau of 5nvesti"ation, for mandamus :to copel herein petitioner to furnish

private respondent the e2tradition docuents, to "ive hi access thereto, and to afford hi an opportunit$ to

coent on, or oppose, the e2tradition re>uest, and thereafter to evaluate the re>uest ipartiall$, fairl$ and

obFectivel$


4/37

counsels for the parties herein, is set on Au"ust ), )+++ at +&// o%clock in the ornin". The respondents

are, like!ise, ordered to file their !ritten coent andGor opposition to the issuance of a Preliinar$

5nFunction on or before said date.

7' 'RERE.

:pp. ))/;))), Rollo.<

-orth!ith, petitioner initiated the instant proceedin"s, ar"uin" that&

P9B5C RE7P'NENT ACTE 35T#'9T 'R 5N EHCE77 '- (9R575CT5'N 'R 35T# 8RA@E

AB97E '- 57CRET5'N AM'9NT5N8 T' ACI 'R EHCE77 '- (9R575CT5'N 5N 57795N8

T#E TEMP'RARJ RE7TRA5N5N8 'RER BECA97E&

5.

BJ 'RER5N8 #ERE5N PET5T5'NER T' RE-RA5N -R'M C'MM5TT5N8 T#E ACT7

C'MPA5NE '-, I . E ., T' E757T -R'M RE-975N8 PR5@ATE RE7P'NENT ACCE77 T' T#E'--5C5A EHTRA5T5'N REK9E7T AN 'C9MENT7 AN -R'M ENJ5N8 PR5@ATE

RE7P'NENT AN 'PP'RT9N5TJ T' -5E A C'MMENT 'N, 'R 'PP'75T5'N T', T#E

REK9E7T, T#E MA5N PRAJER -'R A 3R5T '- MANDAMUS 5N T#E PET5T5'N -'R

MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AN PR'#5B5T5'N 3A7, 5N E--ECT, 8RANTE 7' A7 T'

C'N7T5T9TE AN A(95CAT5'N 'N T#E MER5T7 '- T#E MANDAMUS 5779E74

55.

PET5T5'NER 3A7 9NK9A5-5EJ PRE@ENTE -R'M PER-'RM5N8 E8A 9T5E7

9NER T#E EHTRA5T5'N TREATJ AN T#E P#55PP5NE EHTRA5T5'N A34

555.

T#E PET5T5'N -'R MANDAMUS!, CERTIORARI AN PR'#5B5T5'N 57, 'N 5T7 -ACE,

-'RMAJ AN 79B7TANT5AJ E-5C5ENT4 AN

5@.

PR5@ATE RE7P'NENT #A7 N' R58#T IN ESSE T#AT NEE7 PR'TECT5'N AN

EN-'RCEMENT, AN 35 N'T 79--ER ANJ 5RREPARABE 5N(9RJ.

:pp. )+;/, Rollo.<

'n Au"ust ), )+++, the Court re>uired private respondent to file his coent. Also issued, as pra$ed for, !as a

teporar$ restrainin" order :TR'< providin"&

N'3, T#ERE-'RE, effective iediatel$ and continuin" until further orders fro this Court, Jou,

Respondent (ud"e Ralph C. antion, $our a"ents, representatives or an$ person or persons actin" in $our

place or stead are hereb$ 'RERE to CEA7E and E757T fro enforcin" the assailed order dated

Au"ust +, )+++ issued b$ public respondent in Civil Case No. ++;+60?6.

85@EN b$ the #onorable #5AR5' 8. A@5E, (R., Chief (ustice, 7upree Court of the Philippines,this )th da$ of Au"ust )+++.


5/37

:pp. )/;)), Rollo.<

The case !as heard on oral ar"uent on Au"ust *), )+++, after !hich the parties, as directed, filed their

respective eoranda.

-ro the pleadin"s of the opposin" parties, both procedural and substantive issues are patent. #o!ever, a revie!

of these issues as !ell as the e2tensive ar"uents of both parties, copel us to delineate the focal point raised b$the pleadin"s& urin" the evaluation sta"e of the e2tradition proceedin"s, is private respondent entitled to the

t!o basic due process ri"hts of notice and hearin"L An affirative ans!er !ould necessaril$ render the

proceedin"s at the trial court, oot and acadeic :the issues of !hich are substantiall$ the sae as those before

us no!uestin" state or "overnent to hold hi in connection !ith an$ criinal investi"ation directed a"ainst

hi or the e2ecution of a penalt$ iposed on hi under the penal or criinal la! of the re>uestin" state or

"overnent.1 The portions of the ecree relevant to the instant case !hich involves a char"ed and not convicted

individual, are abstracted as follo!s&

T"e E#tradition Request

The re>uest is ade b$ the -orei"n iploat of the Re>uestin" 7tate, addressed to the 7ecretar$ of -orei"n

Affairs, and shall be accopanied b$&

). The ori"inal or an authentic cop$ of the criinal char"e and the !arrant of arrest issued b$ the

authorit$ of the Re>uestin" 7tate havin" Furisdiction over the atter, or soe other instruents havin"e>uivalent le"al force4

. A recital of the acts for !hich e2tradition is re>uested, !ith the fullest particulars as to the nae and

identit$ of the accused, his !hereabouts in the Philippines, if kno!n, the acts or oissions coplained

of, and the tie and place of the coission of these acts4

*. The te2t of the applicable la! or a stateent of the contents of said la!, and the desi"nation or

description of the offense b$ the la!, sufficient for evaluation of the re>uest4 and

6. 7uch other docuents or inforation in support of the re>uest.

:7ec. 6. Presidential ecree No. )/0+.


6/37


7/37

T"e E#tradition %etition

9pon a findin" ade b$ the 7ecretar$ of -orei"n Affairs that the e2tradition re>uest and its supportin"

docuents are sufficient and coplete in for and substance, he shall deliver the sae to the 7ecretar$ of

(ustice, !ho shall iediatel$ desi"nate and authorize an attorne$ in his office to take char"e of the case

:Para"raph ), 7ection =, P.. No. )/0+uest under consideration :Para"raph , i$id .


8/37

!hich reason he sipl$ for!arded the re>uest to the epartent of (ustice, indicates the a"nitude of the error

of the epartent of -orei"n Affairs in takin" li"htl$ its responsibilities. Thereafter, the epartent of (ustice

took it upon itself to deterine the copleteness of the docuents and to evaluate the sae to find out !hether

the$ copl$ !ith the re>uireents laid do!n in the E2tradition a! and the RP;97 E2tradition Treat$.

Petitioner ratiocinates in this connection that althou"h the epartent of (ustice had no obli"ation to evaluate

the e2tradition docuents, the epartent also had to "o over the so as to be able to prepare an e2tradition

petition :tsn, Au"ust *), )+++, pp. 6;=uest, and to present evidence in support of the

opposition4 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 epartents see to have isread the scope of their duties and authorit$, one abdicatin" its po!ers and

the other enlar"in" its coission. The epartent of -orei"n Affairs, oreover, has, throu"h the 7olicitor

8eneral, filed a anifestation that it is adoptin" the instant petition as its o!n, indirectl$ conve$in" the essa"e

that if it !ere to evaluate the e2tradition re>uest, it !ould not allo! private respondent to participate in the

process of evaluation.

Plainl$ then, the record cannot support the presuption of re"ularit$ that the epartent of -orei"n Affairs

thorou"hl$ revie!ed the e2tradition re>uest and supportin" docuents and that it arrived at a !ell;founded

Fud"ent that the re>uest and its anne2ed docuents satisf$ the re>uireents of la!. The 7ecretar$ of (ustice,

einent as he is in the field of la!, could not privatel$ revie! the papers all b$ hiself. #e had to officiall$

constitute a panel of attorne$s. #o! then could the -A 7ecretar$ or his undersecretar$, in less than one da$,

ake the ore authoritative deterinationL

The evaluation process, Fust like the e2tradition proceedin"s proper, belon"s to a class b$ itself. 5t is sui 'eneris.

5t is not a criinal investi"ation, but it is also erroneous to sa$ that it is purel$ an e2ercise of inisterial

functions. At such sta"e, the e2ecutive authorit$ has the po!er& :a< to ake a technical assessent of the

copleteness 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" docuents the cries indicated are not e2traditable4 and :c< to ake a deterination

!hether or not the re>uest is politicall$ otivated, 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 adinistrative la!, a >uasi;Fudicial proceedin" involves& :a< takin" and evaluation of evidence4 :b<

deterinin" facts based upon the evidence presented4 and :c< renderin" an order or decision supported b$ the

facts proved :e eon, Adinistrative a!& Te2t and Cases, )++* ed., p. )+?, citin" Mor"an vs. 9nited 7tates,

*/6 9.7. )uisitorial po!er, !hich is also kno!n as e2ainin" or investi"ator$ po!er, is one or thedeterinative po!ers of an adinistrative bod$ !hich better enables it to e2ercise its >uasi;Fudicial authorit$

:Cruz, Phil. Adinistrative a!, )++0 ed., p. 0


9/37

deterinin" !hether an adinistrative bod$ is e2ercisin" Fudicial functions or erel$ investi"ator$ functions&

AdFudication si"nifies the e2ercise of po!er and authorit$ to adFudicate upon the ri"hts and obli"ations of the

parties before it. #ence, if the onl$ purpose for investi"ation is to evaluate evidence subitted before it based on

the facts and circustances presented to it, and if the a"enc$ is not authorized to ake a final pronounceent

affectin" the parties, then there is an absence of Fudicial discretion and Fud"ent.

The above description in Ru(erto applies to an adinistrative bod$ authorized to evaluate e2traditiondocuents. The bod$ has no po!er to adFudicate in re"ard to the ri"hts and obli"ations of both the Re>uestin"

7tate and the prospective e2traditee. 5ts onl$ po!er is to deterine !hether the papers copl$ !ith the

re>uireents of the la! and the treat$ and, therefore, sufficient to be the basis of an e2tradition petition. 7uch

findin" is thus erel$ initial and not final. The bod$ has no po!er to deterine !hether or not the e2tradition

should be effected. That is the role of the court. The bod$%s po!er is liited to an initial findin" of !hether or

not the e2tradition petition can be filed in court.

5t is to be noted, ho!ever, that in contrast to ordinar$ investi"ations, the evaluation procedure is characterized b$

certain peculiarities. Priaril$, it sets into otion the !heels of the e2tradition process. 9ltiatel$, it a$ result

in the deprivation of libert$ of the prospective e2traditee. This deprivation can be effected at t!o sta"es& /irst ,

the provisional arrest of the prospective e2traditee pendin" the subission of the re>uest. This is so because theTreat$ provides that in case of ur"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$uested

7tate. Second , the teporar$ 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 an adinistrative

a"enc$ conductin" an investi"ative proceedin", the conse>uences of !hich are essentiall$ criinal since such

technical assessent sets off or coences the procedure for, and ultiatel$, the deprivation of libert$ of a

prospective e2traditee. As described b$ petitioner hiself, this is a 1tool1 for criinal la! enforceent :p. ?,

Rollo


10/37

Ca$al vs. 1a(unan : su(ra< involved an adinistrative char"e of une2plained !ealth a"ainst a respondent !hich

!as filed under Republic Act No. )*+, or the Anti;8raft a!. A"ain, !e therein ruled that since the

investi"ation a$ result in forfeiture of propert$, the adinistrative proceedin"s are deeed criinal or penal,

and such forfeiture partakes the nature of a penalt$. There is also the earlier case of Almeda, Sr . vs. %ere2 :=

7CRA +/ )+0uest e2poses a person to eventual e2tradition to a forei"ncountr$, thus salientl$ e2hibitin" the criinal or penal aspect of the process. 5n this sense, the evaluation

procedure is akin to a preliinar$ investi"ation since both procedures a$ have the sae result D the arrest and

iprisonent of the respondent or the person char"ed. 7iilar to the evaluation sta"e of e2tradition

proceedin"s, a preliinar$ investi"ation, !hich a$ result in the filin" of an inforation a"ainst the respondent,

can possibl$ lead to his arrest, and to the deprivation of his libert$.

Petitioner%s reliance on 3ri'"t vs. Court o) A((eals :*= 7CRA 6) )++< :p. ?, petitioner%s Meorandu<

that the e2tradition treat$ is neither a piece of criinal le"islation nor a criinal procedural statute is not !ell;

taken. 3ri'"t is not authorit$ for petitioner%s conclusion that his preliinar$ processin" is not akin to a

preliinar$ 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 had nothin" to do !ith the denial of the ri"ht to notice, inforation,

and hearin".

As earl$ as )??6, the 9nited 7tates 7upree 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 the le"islative po!er, in furtherance

of the "eneral public "ood, !hich re"ards and preserved these principles of libert$ and Fustice, ust be held to

be due process of la!1 :#urtado vs. California, ))/ 9.7. =)0uireents

cannot be deeed non;copliance !ith treat$ coitents.

The 9nited 7tates and the Philippines share a utual concern about the suppression and punishent of crie in

their respective Furisdictions. At the sae tie, both 7tates accord coon due process protection to their respective citizens.

The due process clauses in the Aerican and Philippine Constitutions are not onl$ !orded in e2actl$ identical

lan"ua"e and terinolo"$, but ore iportantl$, the$ are alike in !hat their respective 7upree Courts have

e2pounded as the spirit !ith !hich the provisions are infored and ipressed, the elasticit$ in their

interpretation, their d$naic and resilient character !hich ake the capable of eetin" ever$ odern

proble, and their havin" been desi"ned fro earliest tie to the present to eet the e2i"encies of an undefined

and e2pandin" future. The re>uireents of due process are interpreted in both the 9nited 7tates and the

Philippines as not den$in" to the la! the capacit$ for pro"ress and iproveent. To!ard this effect and in order

to avoid the confines of a le"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 asthe$ arise1 :T!inin" vs. Ne! (erse$, )) 9.7. ?


11/37

)+0uer$ a$ be asked& oes the evaluation sta"e of the

e2tradition proceedin"s fall under an$ of the described situations entioned aboveL

et us take a brief look at the nature of Aerican e2tradition proceedin"s !hich are >uite note!orth$

considerin" that the subFect treat$ involves the 9.7. 8overnent.

Aerican Furisprudence distin"uishes bet!een interstate rendition or e2tradition !hich is based on the

E2tradition Clause in the 9.7. Constitution :Art. 5@, cl


12/37

soe court or a"istrate :*= C.(.7. 6/0;6/uireents !ith respect to said char"in" instruent or papers are andator$

since said papers are necessar$ in order to confer Furisdiction on the "overnent of the as$lu state to effect

e2tradition :*= C.(.7. 6/?;6)/


13/37

7ecretar$ of 7tate. The ultiate decision !hether to surrender an individual rests !ith the 7ecretar$ of

7tate :)? 9.7.C. *)?0uest a$ not liti"ate >uestions concernin" the otives of the

re>uestin" "overnent in seekin" his e2tradition. #o!ever, a person facin" e2tradition a$ present

!hatever inforation he dees relevant to the 7ecretar$ of 7tate, !ho akes the final deterination

!hether to surrender an individual to the forei"n "overnent concerned.

-ro the fore"oin", it a$ be observed that in the 9nited 7tates, e2tradition be"ins and ends !ith one entit$ D

the epartent of 7tate D !hich has the po!er to evaluate the re>uest and the e2tradition docuents 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 deterination

of e2traditabilit$. 5n the Philippine settin", it is the epartent 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 the epartent of (ustice for the preparation and filin" of the petition for e2tradition.

7adl$, ho!ever, the epartent of -orei"n Affairs, in the instant case, perfunctoril$ turned over the re>uest to

the epartent 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. 8overnent should the person sou"ht to be

e2tradited be "iven due process ri"hts b$ the Philippines in the evaluation sta"e. #e ephasizes that petitioner%s

priar$ concern is the possible dela$ in the evaluation process.

3e a"ree !ith private respondent%s citation of an Aerican 7upree Court rulin"&

The establishent of propt efficacious procedures to achieve le"itiate state ends is a proper state

interest !orth$ of co"nizance in constitutional adFudication. 0ut t"e Constitution reco'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 (raiseort"5

'overnment o))icials no less, and perhaps ore, than ediocre ones.

:7tanle$ vs. 5llinois, 6/6 9.7. 06=, 0=0<

The 9nited 7tates, no doubt, shares the sae interest as the Philippine 8overnent that no ri"ht D that of

libert$ D secured not onl$ b$ the Bills of Ri"hts of the Philippines Constitution but of the 9nited 7tates as !ell,

is sacrificed at the altar of e2pedienc$.

:pp. 6/;6), Private Respondent%s Meorandu.<

5n the Philippine conte2t, this Court%s rulin" is invoked&

'ne of the basic principles of the deocratic s$ste is that !here the ri"hts of the individual are

concerned, the end does not Fustif$ the eans. 5t is not enou"h that there be a valid obFective4 it is also

necessar$ that the eans eplo$ed to pursue it be in keepin" !ith the Constitution. Mere e2pedienc$

!ill not e2cuse constitutional shortcuts. There is no >uestion that not even the stron"est oral conviction

or the ost ur"ent public need, subFect onl$ to a fe! notable e2ceptions, !ill e2cuse the b$passin" of an

individual%s ri"hts. 5t is no e2a""eration to sa$ that a person invokin" a ri"ht "uaranteed under Article 555

of the Constitution is a aForit$ of one even as a"ainst the rest of the nation !ho !ould den$ hi that

ri"ht :Association of 7all ando!ners in the Philippines, 5nc. vs. 7ecretar$ of A"rarian Refor, )=

7CRA *6*, *=;*0 )+?+


14/37

effective, re>uests for e2tradition or the surrender of accused or convicted persons ust be processed

e2peditiousl$. Nevertheless, accelerated or fast;tracked proceedin"s and adherence to fair procedures are,

ho!ever, not al!a$s incopatible. The$ do not al!a$s clash in discord. 7uar$ does not ean precipitous

haste. 5t does not carr$ a disre"ard of the basic principles inherent in 1ordered libert$.1

5s there reall$ an ur"ent need for iediate 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 interstate e2tradition, the "overnor of theas$lu state a$ not, in the absence of andator$ statute, be copelled to act favorabl$ :* C.(.7. *?< since

after a close evaluation of the e2tradition papers, he a$ hold that federal and statutor$ re>uireents, !hich are

si"nificantl$ Furisdictional, have not been et :*) Am 4ur d ?)+uested state has the po!er to den$ the behest fro the re>uestin" state.

Accordin"l$, if after a careful e2aination of the e2tradition docuents the 7ecretar$ of -orei"n Affairs finds

that the re>uest fails to eet the re>uireents of the la! and the treat$, he shall not for!ard the re>uest to the

epartent of (ustice for the filin" of the e2tradition petition since non;copliance !ith the aforesaid

re>uireents !ill not vest our "overnent !ith Furisdiction to effect the e2tradition.

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

!ith the re>uireents of the la! and the treat$ since it even infored the 9.7. 8overnent of certain problesin 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 adinistrative action. 5s private

respondent precluded fro enFo$in" the ri"ht to notice and hearin" at a later tie !ithout preFudice to hiL #ere

lies the peculiarit$ and deviant characteristic of the evaluation procedure. 'n one hand there is $et no e2traditee,

but ironicall$ on the other, it results in an adinistrative if adverse to the person involved, a$ cause his

iediate incarceration. The "rant of the re>uest shall lead to the filin" of the e2tradition petition in court. The

1accused1 :as 7ection c of Presidential ecree No. )/0+ calls hiuireents of adinistrative due process cannot be dispensed !ith and shelved

aside.

Apart fro the due process clause of the Constitution, private respondent like!ise invokes 7ection of Article555 !hich reads&

7ec. . The ri"ht of the people to inforation on atters of public concern shall be reco"nized. Access to

official records, and to docuents and papers pertainin" to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as !ell

as to "overnent research data used as basis for polic$ developent, shall be afforded the citizen, subFect

to such liitations as a$ be provided b$ la!.

The above provision "uarantees political ri"hts !hich are available to citizens of the Philippines, nael$& :)< the

ri"ht to inforation on atters of public concern, and :< the corollar$ ri"ht of access to official records

docuents. The "eneral ri"ht "uaranteed b$ said provision is the ri"ht to inforation on atters of public

concern. 5n its ipleentation, the ri"ht of access to official records is like!ise conferred. These co"nate or related ri"hts are 1subFect to liitations as a$ be provided b$ la!1 :Bernas, The )+? Phil. Constitution A

Revie!er;Prier, )++ ed., p. )/6< and rel$ on the preise that ultiatel$ it is an infored and critical public


15/37


16/37

ait$ !ith nations.1 9nder the doctrine of incorporation, rules of international la! for part of the la! of the

and land no further le"islative action is needed to ake such rules applicable in the doestic sphere :7alon"a

Jap, Public 5nternational a!, )++ ed., p. )ual standin" !ith, but are not superior to, national le"islative enactents. 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"hest la! of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and

treaties a$ be invalidated if the$ are in conflict !ith the constitution : I$id .uentl$, he describes the evaluation

procedure as an 1e# (arte technical assessent1 of the sufficienc$ of the e2tradition re>uest and the supportin"

docuents.

3e disa"ree.

5n the absence of a la! or principle of la!, !e ust appl$ the rules of fair pla$. An application of the basic t!in

due process ri"hts of notice and hearin" !ill not "o a"ainst the treat$ or the ipleentin" la!. Neither theTreat$ nor the E2tradition a! precludes these ri"hts fro a prospective e2traditee. 7iilarl$, Aerican

Furisprudence and procedures on e2tradition pose no proscription. 5n fact, in interstate e2tradition proceedin"s as

e2plained above, the prospective e2traditee a$ even re>uest for copies of the e2tradition docuents fro the

"overnor of the as$lu state, and if he does, his ri"ht to be supplied the sae becoes a deandable ri"ht :*=

C.(.7. 6)/uested the Philippine 8overnent to prevent unauthorized

disclosure of confidential inforation. #ence, the secrec$ surroundin" the action of the epartent of (ustice

Panel of Attorne$s. The confidentialit$ ar"uent is, ho!ever, overturned b$ petitioner%s revelation that

ever$thin" it refuses to ake available at this sta"e !ould be obtainable durin" trial. The epartent of (ustice

states that the 9.7. istrict Court concerned has authorized the disclosure of certain "rand Fur$ inforation. 5f the inforation is trul$ confidential, the veil of secrec$ cannot be lifted at an$ sta"e of the e2tradition


17/37


18/37


19/37

S%ara+% O'n'on&

"TUG, 4, separate opinion4

The onl$ real issue before the Court, 5 !ould take it, is !hether or not private respondent can validl$ ask for

copies of pertinent docuents !hile the application for e2tradition a"ainst hi is still under"oin" process b$ the

E2ecutive epartent.

There is, 5 a"ree !ith the aForit$, a ri"ht of access to such e2tradition docuents conforabl$ !ith the

provisions of Article 555, 7ection , of the Philippine Constitution.) The constitutional ri"ht to free access to

inforation of public concern is circuscribed onl$ b$ the fact that the desired inforation is not aon" the

species e2epted b$ la! fro the operation of the constitutional "uarant$ and that the e2ercise of the ri"ht

confors !ith such reasonable conditions as a$ be prescribed b$ la!.

There is no hornbook rule to deterine !hether or not an inforation is of public concern. The ter 1public

concern1 eludes e2actitude, and it can easil$ ebrace a broad spectru of atters !hich the public a$ !ant to

kno! either because the subFect thereof can affect their lives or sipl$ because it arouses concern.

5 a not convinced that there is soethin" so viciousl$ !ron" !ith, as to den$, the re>uest of private respondent

to be furnished !ith copies of the e2tradition docuents.

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 subit an$ evidence that he a$ !ish to proffer in an effort

to clear hiself. This ri"ht is t!o;pron"ed D substantive and procedural due process D founded, in the first

instance, on Constitutional or statutor$ provisions, and in the second instance, on accepted rules of procedure. *

7ubstantive due process looks into the e2trinsic and intrinsic validit$ of the la! that fi"ures to interfere !ith the

ri"ht of a person to his life, libert$ and propert$. Procedural due process D the ore liti"ated of the t!o D

focuses on the rules that are established in order to ensure eanin"ful adFudication in the enforceent andipleentation of the la!. ike 1public concern,1 the ter due process does not adit of an$ restrictive

definition. (ustice -rankfurter has vie!ed this fle2ible concept, aptl$ 5 believe, as bein" 1. . . copounded b$

histor$, reason, the past course of decisions, and stout confidence in the deocratic faith.1 6 The fraers of our

o!n Constitution, it !ould see, have deliberatel$ intended, to ake it alleable to the ever;chan"in" ilieu of

societ$. #itherto, it is d$naic 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 be diffused.= @eril$, !henever there is an imminent t"reat to t"e li)e,

li$ert5 or (ro(ert5 o) an5 (erson in an$ proceedin" conducted b$ or under the auspices of the 7tate, his ri"ht to

due process of la!, !hen deanded, ust not be i"nored.

A dan"er to the libert$ of the e2traditee, the private respondent, is real. Article + of the E2tradition Treat$

bet!een the 8overnent of the Republic of the Philippines and the 8overnent of the 9nited 7tates of Aerica

provides that in case of ur"enc$, a Contractin" Part$ a$ re>uest the provisional arrest of the person (rior to t"e

(resentation o) t"e request )or e#tradition. 5 see iplicit in this provision that even after the re>uest for

e2tradition is ade and before a petition for e2tradition is filed !ith the courts, the possibilit$ of an arrest bein"

ade on the basis of a ere evaluation b$ the E2ecutive 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 E2ecutive epartent should be

ipeded 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 docuents and to file his coent thereon is not necessaril$ anathea to the proceedin"s dul$ andated b$ the treat$ to be ade.

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#fnt5http://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#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt1


20/37

5 vote to den$ the petition.

APUNAN, 4, separate concurrin" opinion4

5 vote to disiss 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 Teporar$ Restrainin" 'rder

:TR'< issued b$ respondent (ud"e Ralph C. antion on Au"ust +, )+++ in Civil Case No. ++;+60?6. The TR'

directed respondents in said case to&

. . . aintain the status quo b$ refrainin" fro coittin" the acts coplained of4 fro conductin"

further proceedin"s in connection !ith the re>uest of the 9nited 7tates 8overnent for the e2tradition of

the petitioner4 fro filin" the correspondin" Petition !ith the Re"ional Trial Court4 and fro perforin"

an$ act directed to the e2tradition of the petitioner to the 9nited 7tates, )or a (eriod o) tent5 da5s )rom

t"e service on res(ondents o) t"is Order , pursuant to 7ection =, Rule =? of the )++ Rules of Court. )

:Ephasis ours.<

The petition itself cate"oricall$ states that 1:tuest for

e2tradition and to have an opportunit$ to controvert are not provided in the e2tradition treat$ or in P.. )/0+ and

therefore does not e2ist in this sta"e of the proceedin"s. -urther, he ar"ues that the docuents sou"ht to be

furnished to private respondent onl$ involve (rivate concerns, and not atters of (u$lic concern to !hich the

people have a constitutional ri"ht to access.

3hile the evaluation process conducted b$ the epartent of (ustice is not e2actl$ a preliinar$ investi"ation

of criinal cases, it is akin to a preliinar$ investi"ation because it involves the basic constitutional ri"hts of the

person sou"ht to be e2tradited. A person ordered e2tradited is arrested, forcibl$ taken fro his house, separated

fro his fail$ and delivered to a forei"n state. #is ri"hts of abode, to privac$, libert$ and pursuit of happinessare taken a!a$ fro hi D a fate as harsh and cruel as a conviction of a criinal offense. -or this reason, he is

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#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt3


21/37

entitled to have access to the evidence a"ainst hi and the ri"ht to controvert the.

3hile the e2tradition treat$ and P.. )/0+ do not provide for a preliinar$ investi"ation, neither does either

prohibit it. The ri"ht to due process is a universal basic ri"ht !hich is deeed !ritten into our la!s and treaties

!ith forei"n countries.

ike a preliinar$ investi"ation, the evaluation b$ the epartent of (ustice of the e2tradition re>uest and itsaccopan$in" docuents is to establish probable cause and to secure the innocent a"ainst hast$, alicious and

oppressive prosecution.

5n this connection, it should be stressed that the evaluation procedure of the e2tradition re>uest and its

accopan$in" docuents b$ the epartent of (ustice cannot be characterized as a ere 1 e#-(arte technical

assessent of the sufficienc$1 thereof. The function and responsibilities of the epartent of (ustice in

evaluatin" the e2tradition papers involve the e2ercise of Fud"ent. The$ involve a deterination !hether the

re>uest for e2tradition confors full$ to the re>uireents of the e2tradition treat$ and !hether the offense is

e2traditable. These include, aon" others, !hether the offense for !hich e2tradition is re>uested is a political or

ilitar$ offense :Article *uired under Article :< have been

provided :Article uireents of due process and e>ual

protection are to be observed.

3ith respect to petitioner%s clai that private respondent has no ri"ht to deand access to the docuents relatin"

to the re>uest for e2tradition, suffice it to sa$, that an$ docuent used in a proceedin" that !ould Feopardize a

person%s constitutional ri"hts is atter of public concern. As Martin uther Iin" said, 1inFustice an$!here is a

threat to Fustice ever$!here,1 so an$ violation of one%s ri"hts "uaranteed b$ the Bill of Ri"hts is ever$bod$%s

concern because the$, one !a$ or another, directl$ or indirectl$, affect the ri"hts of life and libert$ of all the

citizens as a !hole.

ue process ri"hts in a preliinar$ investi"ation is no! an established principle. The respondent has a ri"ht of

access to all of the evidence. #e has the ri"ht to subit controvertin" evidence. The prosecutin" official !ho

conducts the preliinar$ investi"ation is re>uired to be neutral, obFective, and ipartial in resolvin" the issue of

probable cause. 5 see no reason !h$ the sae ri"hts a$ not be accorded a person sou"ht to be e2tradited at the

sta"e !here the epartent of (ustice evaluates !hether a petition for e2tradition !ould be filed before a

re"ional trial court. 5f denied such ri"hts, not onl$ denial of due process ri"hts but of e>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"ht to be

e2tradited a$ e2ercise all due process ri"hts. #e a$ then have access to all the records on the basis of !hichthe 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 process re>uireent.

But !h$ ust he !ait until the petition for e2tradition is filedL As succinctl$ e2pressed, if the ri"ht to notice and

hearin" is to serve its full purpose, then, it is clear that it ust be "ranted at a tie !hen the deprivation can still

be prevented.6 ike the filin" of an inforation in a criinal case, the ere filin" of a petition for e2tradition

causes iediate ipairent of the libert$ of the person sou"ht to be e2tradited and a substantial curtailent of

other ri"hts. #is arrest a$ be iediatel$ ordered b$ the re"ional trial court. #e !ould be copelled to face an

open and public trial. #e !ill be constrained to seek the assistance of counsel and incur other e2penses of

liti"ation. The public e$e !ould be directed at hi !ith all the concoitant intrusions to his ri"ht to privac$.

3here the libert$ of a person is at risk, and e2tradition strikes at the ver$ core of libert$, invocation of due process ri"hts can never be too earl$.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt4


22/37

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

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

The huan 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 claied b$ a contractin" state. 7tated other!ise, the

constitutionall$ andated duties of our "overnent to the individual deserve preferential consideration !hen

the$ collide !ith its treat$ obli"ations to the "overnent of another state. 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 priordial reason, 5 vote to ENJ the petition.

Moreover, considerin" that the E2tradition Treat$ bet!een the 97A and Philippines appears ute on the specific

issue before us, the Court D in the e2ercise of its Fudicial po!er to find and state !hat the la! is D has this rare

opportunit$ of settin" a precedent that enhances respect for huan ri"hts and stren"thens due process of la!.

As both aForit$ and dissentin" collea"ues in the Court !ill reco"nize, Aerican authorities follo! t!o tracks

in e2tradition proceedin"s& :)< the interstate practice !here, pursuant to statute, the state E2ecutive upon deand

furnishes the !ould be e2traditee or counsel copies of pertinent docuents as !ell as the re>uest for e2tradition4

and :< the international practice !here the E2ecutive departent need not initiall$ "rant notice and hearin" at

all. Rules of reciprocit$ and coit$, ho!ever, should not bar us fro appl$in" internationall$ no! !hat appears

the ore reasonable and huane procedure, that is, the interstate practice aon" Aericans theselves. -or in

this case the Aerican people should be aon" the ost interested parties.

Trul$, !hat private respondent is askin" our E2ecutive departent :notice, copies of docuents, and the

opportunit$ to protect hiself at the earliest tie 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$ in interstate or

inter"overnental relations rather than secrec$ !hich sacks of edieval diploac$ 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 Aerican perhaps


23/37

!hat is due to hi. 5 Foin in his e2position of this Court%s constitutional dut$ to strike the correct balance

bet!een over!helin" 8overnent po!er and the protection of individual ri"hts !here onl$ one person is

involved.

#o!ever, 5 a constrained to !rite this short concurrence if onl$ to pose the >uestion of !h$ there should be

an$ debate at all on a plea for protection of one%s libert$ !hich, if "ranted, !ill not result in an$ eanin"ful

ipedient of th!artin" an$ state polic$ and obFectives.

5 see no reason !h$ respondent Mark (ienez, 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 before he a$ be infored of

!hat the contractin" states in an e2tradition treat$ have a"ainst hi. There is no >uestion that ever$thin" !hich

respondent (ienez no! re>uests !ill be "iven to hi durin" trial. Mr. (ienez is onl$ petitionin" that, at t"is

sta'e, he should be infored !h$ he a$ be deported fro his on countr$.

5 see no ill effects !hich !ould arise if the e2tradition re>uest and supportin" docuents are sho!n to hi no!,

instead of later.

Petitioner 7ecretar$ of (ustice states that his action on the e2tradition re>uest and its supportin" docuents !illerel$ deterine !hether or not the Philippines is copl$in" !ith its treat$ obli"ations. #e adds that, therefore,

the constitutional ri"hts of an accused in all criinal prosecutions are not available to the private respondent.

The (ul$ )*, )+++ repl$;letter fro petitioner states the reasons !h$ he is den$in" respondent (ienez%s

re>uests. 5n short, the reasons are&

). 5n evaluatin" the docuents, the epartent erel$ deterines !hether the procedures and

re>uireents under the relevant la! and treat$ have been coplied !ith b$ the Re>uestin" 8overnent.

The constitutional ri"hts of the accused in all criinal prosecutions are, therefore, not available.

. The 9nited 7tates 8overnent has re>uested the Philippine 8overnent to prevent unauthorized

disclosure of certain "rand Fur$ inforation.

*. The petitioner cannot hold in abe$ance proceedin"s in connection !ith an e2tradition re>uest. -or

e2tradition to be an effective tool of criinal la! enforceent, re>uests for surrender of accused or

convicted persons ust be processed e2peditiousl$.

5 respectfull$ subit that an$ apprehensions in the Court arisin" fro a denial of the petition D 1breach of an

international obli"ation, rupture of states relations, forfeiture of confidence, national ebarrassent, 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. 5cannot ia"ine the 9nited 7tates takin" issue over !hat, to it, !ould be a inor concession, perhaps a sli"ht

dela$, accorded in the nae of huan ri"hts. 'n the other hand, the issue is fundaental in the Philippines. A

citizen is invokin" the protection, in the conte2t of a treat$ obli"ation, of ri"hts e2pressl$ "uaranteed b$ the

Philippine Constitution.

9ntil proved to be a valid subFect for e2tradition, a person is presued innocent or not covered b$ the sanctions

of either criinal la! or international treat$. At an$ sta"e !here a still prospective e2traditee 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 to aliens and citizens alike.

Petitioner cites as a reason for the denial of respondent%s re>uests, Article of the Treat$. Article enueratesthe re>uired docuents and establishes the procedures under !hich the docuents shall be subitted and

aditted as evidence. There is no specific provision on ho! that 7ecretar$ of -orei"n Affairs should conduct his


24/37

evaluation. The 7ecretar$ of (ustice is not even in the picture at this sta"e. 9nder petitioner%s theor$, silence in

the treat$ over a citizen%s ri"hts durin" the evaluation sta"e is interpreted as deliberate e2clusion b$ the

contractin" states of the ri"ht to kno!. 7ilence is interpreted as the e2clusion of the ri"ht to a preliinar$

e2aination or preliinar$ investi"ation provided b$ the la!s of either one of the t!o states.

The ri"ht to be infored of char"es !hich a$ lead to court proceedin"s and result in a deprivation of libert$ is

ordinaril$ routine. 5t is readil$ available to one a"ainst !ho the state%s coercive po!er has alread$ beenfocused. 5 fail to see ho! silence can be interpreted as e2clusion. The treat$ is silent because at this sta"e, the

preliinar$ procedure is still an internal atter. And !hen a la! or treat$ 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". The e2planation of

petitioner is self;contradictor$. 'n one hand, petitioner asserts that the 9nited 7tates 8overnent re>uested the

Philippine 8overnent to prevent unauthorized disclosure of certain inforation. 'n the other hand, petitioner

declares that the 9nited 7tates has alread$ secured orders fro concerned istrict Courts authorizin" the

disclosure of the sae "rand Fur$ inforation to the Philippine 8overnent and its la! enforceent personnel.

'fficial perission has been "iven. The 9nited 7tates has no cause to coplain about the disclosure of inforation furnished to the Philippines.

Moreover, ho! can "rand Fur$ inforation and docuents 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.

(ienez should be e2tradited. #is innocence or "uilt of an$ crie !ill be deterined in an Aerican court. 5t is

there !here prosecution strate"ies !ill be essential. 5f the Contractin" 7tates believed in a total non;divul"in" of

inforation prior to court hearin"s, the$ !ould have so provided in the e2tradition treat$. A positive provision

akin" certain ri"hts unavailable cannot be iplied fro silence.

5 cannot believe that the 9nited 7tates and the Philippines !ith identical constitutional provisions on due process

and basic ri"hts should sustain such a $opic vie! in a situation !here the "rant of a ri"ht !ould not result in

an$ serious setbacks to criinal la! enforceent.

5t is obvious that an$ prospective e2traditee !ants to kno! if his identit$ as the person indicated has been

established. Considerin" the penchant of Asians to adopt Aerican naes !hen in Aerica, the issue of !hether

or not the prospective e2traditee trul$ is the person char"ed in the 9nited 7tates becoes a valid >uestion. 5t is

not onl$ identit$ of the person !hich is involved. The cries ust also be unistakabl$ identified and their

essential eleents clearl$ stated.

There are other preliinar$ atters in !hich respondent is interested. 5 see nothin" in our la!s or in the Treat$

!hich prohibits the prospective e2traditee fro kno!in" until after the start of trial !hether or not thee2tradition treat$ applies to hi.

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


25/37

and ipartiall$ !ithout an$ predisposition to "rantin" it and, therefore, hastenin" the e2tradition process.

5n the first place, an$ assistance !hich the evaluatin" official a$ "et fro the participation of respondent a$

!ell point out deficiencies and insufficiencies in the e2tradition docuents. 5t !ould incur "reater dela$s if these

are discovered onl$ durin" court trial. 'n the other hand, if, fro respondent%s participation, the evaluatin"

official discovers a case of istaken identit$, insufficient pleadin"s, inade>uate coplaints, or an$ ruinous

shortcoin", there !ould be no dela$s durin" trial. An unnecessar$ trial !ith all its coplications !ould beavoided.

The ri"ht to be infored 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 adinistrative bodies :Constitution, Art.

555, 7ec. )0uests for e2tradition. 5 understand that this is truer in the 9nited 7tates than in other

countries. Proposed e2traditees are "iven ever$ le"al protection available fro the Aerican Fustice s$ste

before the$ are e2tradited. 3e serve under a "overnent of liited po!ers and inalienable ri"hts. #ence, this

concurrence.

PUNO, 4, dissentin" opinion4

5f the case at bar !as strictl$ a criinal case !hich involves alone the ri"ht of an accused to due process, 5

!ould have co;si"ned the (onencia of our esteeed 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) an accused $ut t"e inter(retation o) an

e#tradition treat5 "ere at sta>e is our 'overnment?s international o$li'ation to surrender to a )orei'n state a

citi2en o) its on so "e can $e tried )or an alle'ed o))ense committed it"in t"at 6urisdiction. The issues are of

first ipression and the aForit$ opinion dan"erousl$ takes us to unkno!n shoals in constitutional and

international la!s, hence this dissentin" 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 crie a"ainst the la! of a 7tate and found in a forei"n 7tate are returned

b$ the latter to the forer for trial or punishent. 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 and convicted and have subse>uentl$ escaped fro

custod$4 and those !ho have been convicted in absentia. 5t does not a((l5 to persons erel$ suspected of havin"

coitted 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 coit offense or to defraud the 9nited 7tates, four :6< counts of

attept to evade or defeat ta2, t!o :< counts of fraud b$ !ire, radio or television, si2 :0< counts of false

stateents or entries and thirt$;three :**< counts of election contributions in the nae of another. There is anoutstandin" !arrant of arrest a"ainst the private respondent issued b$ the 97 istrict Court, 7outhern istrict of

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt1


26/37

-lorida.

A brief revie! of the histor$ of e2tradition la! !ill illuine our labor. Possibl$ the ost authoritative

coentator on e2tradition toda$, M. Cherif Bassiouni, divides the histor$ of e2tradition into four :6< periods&

1:)< ancient ties to seventeenth centur$ D a period revealin" alost e2clusive concern for political and

reli"ious offenders4 :< the ei"hteenth centur$ and half of the nineteenth centur$ D a period of treat$;akin"

chiefl$ concerned !ith ilitar$ offenders characterizin" the condition of Europe durin" that period4 :*< fro)?** to )+6? D a period of collective concern in suppressin" coon criinalit$4 and :6< post;)+6?

developents !hich ushered in a "reater concern for protectin" the huan ri"hts of persons and revealed an

a!areness of the need to have international due process of la! re"ulate international relations.1

5t is also re!ardin" to have a "ood "rip on the chan"in" slopes in the landscape of e2tradition durin" these

different periods. E2tradition !as first practiced b$ the E"$ptians, Chinese, Chaldeans and Ass$ro;Bab$lonians

but their basis for allo!in" e2tradition !as unclear. 7oeties, it !as "ranted due to pacts4 at other ties, due

to plain "ood !ill.* The classical commentators on international la! thus focused their earl$ vie!s on the nature

o) t"e dut5 to surrender an e2traditee D !hether the dut$ is le"al or oral in character. 8rotius and de @attel led

the school of thou"ht that international la! iposed a le'al dut5 called civitas ma#ima to e2tradite criinals.6

5nsharp contrast, Puffendorf and Billot led the school of thou"ht that the so;called dut$ !as but an 1 im(er)ect

o$li'ation !hich could becoe en)orcea$le onl5 b$ a contract or a"reeent bet!een states.=

Modern nations tilted to!ards the vie! of Puffendorf and Billot that under international la! there is no dut$ to

e2tradite in the absence of treat$, !hether bilateral or ultilateral. Thus, the 97 7upree Court in US v.

Rausc"er ,0 held& 1. . . . it is onl5 in modern times that the nations of the earth have iposed upon theselves the

obli"ation of deliverin" up these fu"itives fro Fustice to the states !here their cries !ere coitted, for trial

and punishent. This has been done "enerall$ b$ treaties . . . Prior to these treaties, and apart fro the there

!as no !ell;defined obli"ation on one countr$ to deliver up such fu"itives to another4 and thou"h such deliver$

!as often ade it !as upon the principle of coit$ . . .1

Then cae the lon" and still on"oin" debate on !hat should be the su$6ect of international la!. The /th centur$

sa! the draatic rise and fall of different t$pes and hues of authoritarianis D the fascis of 5tal$%s Mussolini

and 8eran$%s #itler, the ilitaris of (apan%s #irohito and the counis of Russia%s 7talin, etc. T"e sin>in'

o) t"ese isms led to t"e elevation o) t"e ri'"ts o) t"e individual a'ainst t"e state . 5ndeed, soe species of huan

ri"hts have alread$ been accorded universal reco'nition. Toda$, the drive to internationalize ri"hts of !oen

and children is also on hi"h "ear.? The hi"her ratin" "iven to huan ri"hts in the hierarch$ of values necessaril$

led to the re;e2aination of ri"htful place of the individual in international la!. 8iven the harshest e$e is the

oss;covered doctrine that international la deals onl5 it" States and t"at individuals are not its su$6ect . -or

its undesirable corrall$ is the sub;doctrine that an individual%s ri"ht in international la! is a near cipher.

Translated in e2tradition la!, the vie! that once coanded a consensus is that since a fu"itive is a ere o$6ect and not a su$6ect of international la!, he is bereft of ri"hts. An e2traditee, so it !as held, is a ere 1obFect

transported fro one state to the other as an e2ercise of the soverei"n !ill of the t!o states involved.1 + The re;

e2aination consi"ned this pernicious doctrine to the useu of ideas.)/ The ne! thinkers of international la!

then "ave a si"nificant shape to the role and ri"hts of the individual in state;concluded treaties and other

international a"reeents. 7o it !as declared b$ then 97 Abassador Philip C. (essup in audible italics& 1A ver$

lar"e part of international affairs and, thus, of the process of international accoodation, concerns the relations

bet!een le"al persons kno!n as states. This is necessaril$ so. 0ut it is no lon'er novel )or t"e (articular interest

o) t"e "uman $ein' to $rea> t"rou'" t"e mass o) interstate relations"i( .1)) The clarion call to re;en"ineer a ne!

!orld order !hose doinant interest !ould transcend the parochial confines of national states !as not

unheeded. Aon" the !orld class scholars !ho Foined the search for the elusive ideolo"ical underpinnin"s of ane! !orld order !ere Jale Professor M$res Mcou"al and Mr. (ustice -lorentino -eliciano. 5n their seinal

!ork. 8a and Minimum 3orld %u$lic Order , the$ su""ested that the obFect of the ne! !orld should be 1to

obtain in particular situations and in the a""re"ate flo! of situations the outcoe of a hi"her de"ree of

http://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#fnt4http://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#fnt11http://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#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


27/37


28/37

9nited 7tates. These courts have been more conservative in li"ht of the principle of separation of po!ers and

their faith in the presuptive validit$ of e2ecutive decisions. B$ and lar"e, the$ adhere to the rule o) non-inquir5

under !hich the e#traditin' court re)uses to e2aine the re>uestin" countr$%s criinal Fustice s$ste or consider

alle"ations that the e2traditee !ill be istreated or denied a fair trial in that countr$.)

The case at bar, 5 respectfull$ subit, does not involve an irreconcila$le con)lict bet!een the RP;97 E2tradition

Treat$ and our Constitution !here !e have to choose one over the other. Rather, it calls for a "armoni2ation bet!een said treat$ and our Constitution. To achieve this desirable obFective, the Court 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 constitutional claims s"ould $e 'iven (rimac5.

8iven this $alancin' a((roac", it is $ huble subission that considerin" all the facts and facets of 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$it res(ondent?s claims, "ence, it s"ould $e

alloed . This is too siplistic an approach. Ri'"ts do not necessaril5 arise )rom a vacuum. 7ilence of the la!

can even ean an iplied 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". 7oeties, the$ involve a difficult choice bet!een ri"ht a"ainst ri"ht. 5n these

situations, there is need to balance the contendin" ri"hts and priac$ is "iven to the ri"ht that !ill serve the

interest of the nation at that particular tie. 5n such instances, the less com(ellin' ri'"t is su$6ected to so)t

restraint but !ithout sotherin" its essence. Proceedin" fro this preise of relativism o) ri'"ts, 5 venture the

vie! that even assuin" 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(osition o) 6udicial (oer . As aditted

in the (onencia itself, an e2tradition proceedin" is sui 'eneris. 5t is, thus, futile to deterine !hat it is. 3"at is

certain is that it is not a criminal (roceedin' !here there is an accused !ho clai the entire arra$ of ri"hts

"uaranteed b$ the Bill of Ri"hts. et it be stressed that 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, constitutional ri"hts that are onl$ relevant do deterine the "uilt or innocence of an accusedcannot be invoked b$ an e2traditee. 5ndeed, an e2tradition proceedin" is summar5 in nature !hich is untrue of

criinal proceedin"s.)? Even the rules o) evidence are di))erent in an e2tradition proceedin". Adission of

evidence is less strin"ent, a"ain because the "uilt of the e2traditee is not under liti"ation. )+ It is not onl5 t"e

qualit5 $ut even t"e quantum o) evidence in e#tradition (roceedin' is di))erent . 5n a criinal case, an accused

can onl$ be convicted b$ (roo) $e5ond reasona$le dou$t ./ 5n an e2tradition proceedin", 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 Fudicial decision !hose finalit$ cannot be chan"ed b$ e2ecutive fiat. 'ur

courts a$ hold an individual e2traditable 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 deterined that the re>uest !as politicall$otivated, or that the offense is a ilitar$ offense !hich is not punishable under non;ilitar$ penal le"islation.1

5n the 9nited 7tates, the 7ecretar$ of 7tate e2ercises this ultiate po!er and is conceded considerable discretion.

#e balances the e>uities of the case and the deands of the nation%s forei"n relations. * 5n su, he is not

straitFacketed b$ strict le"al considerations like an ordinar$ 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) adequate remedies in favor of the

e2traditee, and the traditional leea5 'iven to t"e E#ecutive in the conduct of forei"n affairs have copelled

courts to put a "i'" t"res"old before considerin" clais of individuals that enforceent of an e2tradition treat$

!ill violate their constitutional ri"hts. E2eplif$in" such approach is the Su(reme Court o) Canada !hich has

adopted a "i'"l5 de)erential standard t"at em("asi2es international comit5 and t"e e#ecutive?s e#(erience ininternational matters.6 5t continues to den$ Canada%s charter protection to e#traditees unless t"e violation can

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt17http://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#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt21http://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#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt24http://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#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt24


29/37

$e considered 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"reat to li$ert5 o)

t"e (rivate res(ondent to prop us its thesis that his constitutional ri"hts to due process and access to inforation

ust iediatel$ be vindicated. Alle"edl$, respondent (ienez stands in dan'er o) (rovisional arrest , hence,

the need for hi to be iediatel$ furnished copies of docuents accopan$in" the re>uest for his e2tradition.

Res(ondent?s )ear o) (rovisional arrest is not real . 5t is a self;ia"ined fear for the realities on the "round sho!that the 9nited 7tates authorities have not anifested an$ desire to re>uest for his arrest. 'n the contrar$, the$

filed the e2tradition 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 $e sure, t"e issue

o) "et"er res(ondent 4imene2 ill $e (rovisionall5 arrested is no moot . 9nder 7ection ) 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 iplicitl$ decided not to ove for respondent%s provisional arrest. But

ore iportant, a request )or res(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 person sou"ht pendin"

presentation of the re>uest for e2tradition. A re>uest for provisional arrest a$ be transitted throu"h the

diploatic channel or directl$ bet!een the Philippine epartent of (ustice and the 9nited 7tates

epartent 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 stateents of the facts of the case, includin", if possible, the tie and location of the

offense4

d< a description of the la!s violated4

e< a stateent 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 stateent 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 application and the

reasons for an$ denial.

6. A person !ho is provisionall$ arrested a$ be dischar"ed fro custod$ upon the e2piration of si2t$

:0/< da$s fro the date of arrest pursuant to this Treat$ if the e2ecutive authorit$ of the Re>uested 7tate

has not received the foral re>uest for e2tradition and the supportin" docuents 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 to the relevanttreat$ or convention and !hile the sae reains in force, re>uest for the provisional arrest of the


30/37

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 of 5nvesti"ation,

Manila, either throu"h the diploatic 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"e accused . 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 Affairs has not

received the re>uest for e2tradition and the docuents entioned in 7ection 6 of this 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 c5rillic letters in t"ese

to @! related (rovisions. 5t is self;evident under these provisions that a re>uest for provisional arrest does notean it !ill be "ranted i(so )acto. The re>uest ust copl$ !ith certain re>uireents. 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 the supportin" docuents are insufficient. The protection of the

respondent a"ainst arbitrar$ provisional arrest does not sto( on t"e administrative level . -or even if the irector

of the National Bureau of 5nvesti"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 the

province of cit$ havin" Furisdiction of the place. . . . .1 5t is a 6ud'e !ho !ill issue a !arrant for the provisional

arrest of the respondent. The Fud"e has copl$ !ith 7ection , Article 555 of the Constitution !hich provides that

1no . . . !arrant of arrest shall issue e2cept upon probable cause to be deterined personall$ b$ the Fud"e after

e2aination under oath or affiration of the coplainant and the !itnesses he a$ produce, and particularl$

describin" the . . . persons or thin"s to be seized.1 T"e messa'e t"at lea(s to t"e e5e is t"at com(liance it" t"is

requirements (recludes an5 ar$itrar5 arrest .

5n li"ht of all these considerations, 5 respectfull$ subit that den$in" respondent%s constitutional clai to be

furnished all docuents relatin" to the re>uest for his e2tradition b$ the 97 authorities durin" their evaluation

sta'e !ill not subvert his ri"ht to )undamental )airness. It s"ould $e stressed t"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"e request )or "is e#tradition . 5n truth, and

contrar$ to the ipression 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 tie is !hen he is suoned b$ the e2tradition court and re>uired

to ans!er the petition for e2tradition. Thus, 7ection 0 of P.. No. )/0+ provides&

7ec. 0. Issuance o) Summons4 Tem(orar5 Arrest 4 &earin' , Service o) Notices. D :)< 5ediatel$ upon

receipt of the petition, the presidin" Fud"e of the court shall, as soon as practicable, suon the accused

to appear and to ans!er the petition on the da$ and hour fi2ed in the order. #e a$ issue a !arrant for

the iediate arrest of the accused !hich a$ be served an$!here !ithin the Philippines if it appears to

the presidin" Fud"e that the iediate arrest and teporar$ detention of the accused !ill best serve the

ends of Fustice. 9pon receipt of the ans!er !ithin the tie fi2ed, the presidin" Fud"e shall hear the case

or set another date for the hearin" thereof.

:< The order and notice as !ell as a cop$ of the !arrant of arrest, if issued, shall be proptl$ served

each upon the accused and the attorne$ havin" char"e of the case.

9pon receipt of the suons and the petition, respondent is free to foist all defense available to hi. Suc" an


31/37

o((ortunit5 does not den5 "im )airness "ic" is t"e essence o) due (rocess o) la.

Thus, !ith due respect, 5 subit that t"e (onencia )ailed to accord due im(ortance to t"e international la

as(ect o) an e#tradition treat5 as it undul5 stressed its constitutional la dimension . This "oes a"ainst the

failiar learnin" that in balancin" the clashin" interests involved in e2tradition treat$, national interest is more

equal t"an t"e ot"ers. 3hile latel$, huanitarian considerations are bein" factored in the e>uation, still the

concept of e2tradition as a national act is the "uidin" idea. Re>uestin" and "rantin" e2tradition reains a po!er and prero"ative of the national "overnent of a 7tate. The process still involves relations bet!een international

personalities.= Needless to state, a more de)erential treatment s"ould $e 'iven to national interest t"an to

individual interest . 'ur national interest in e2traditin" persons !ho have coitted cries in a forei"n countr$

are succinctl$ e2pressed in the !hereas clauses of P.. No. )/0+, vi2 &

3#EREA7, the Constitution of the Philippines adopts the "enerall$ accepted principles of international

la! as part of la! of the land, and adheres to the polic$ of peace, e>ualit$, Fustice, freedo, coo(eration

and amit5 it" all nations4

3#EREA7, the su((ression o) crime is the concern not onl$ of the state !here it is coitted but also

of an$ other state to !hich the criinal a$ have escaped, because it saps the foundation of social life

and is an outra"e upon huanit$ at lar"e, and it is in t"e interest o) civili2ed communities t"at crimes

s"ould not 'o un(unis"ed . . . . .

T"e increasin' incidence o) international and transnational crimes, t"e develo(ment o) ne tec"nolo'ies o)

deat", and t"e s(eed and scale o) im(rovement o) communication are )actors "ic" "ave virtuall5 anni"ilated

time and distance. T"e5 ma>e more com(ellin' t"e vindication o) national interest to insure t"at t"e (unis"ment

o) criminals s"ould not $e )rustrated $5 t"e )rontiers o) territorial soverei'nt5 . T"is overridin' national interest

must $e u("eld as a'ainst res(ondent?s ea> constitutional claims "ic" in no a5 amount to denial o)

)undamental )airness.

At $ottom, t"is case involves t"e res(ect t"at courts s"ould accord to t"e E#ecutive t"at concluded t"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"ressan, has opined that the po!er to e2tradite pursuant to a treat$ rests in the e2ecutive branch as part of

its po!er to conduct forei"n affairs.0 Courts have validated this for!ard;lookin" opinion in a catena of

unbroken cases. The$ defer to the Fud"ent of the E2ecutive on the necessities of our forei"n affairs and on its

vie! of the re>uireents of international coit$. The de)erential attitude is dictated b$ the robust realit$ that of

the three "reat branches of our "overnent, 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 >non and un>non continents o) )orei'n relations. 5t is also copelled b$ considerations of the principle

of se(aration o) (oers for the Constitution has clearl$ allocated the po!er to conduct our forei"n affairs to the

E2ecutive. I res(ect)ull5 su$mit t"at t"e ma6orit5 decision "as ea>ened t"e E#ecutive $5 alloin' not"in' less

t"an an unconstitutional "ead$utt on t"e (oer o) t"e E#ecutive to conduct our )orei'n a))airs . T"e ma6orit5 s"ould $e cautions in involvin' t"is Court in t"e conduct o) t"e nation?s )orei'n relations "ere t"e inviola$le

rule dictated $5 necessit5 is t"at t"e nation s"ould s(ea> it" one voice . 3e s"ould not overloo> t"e realit5 t"at

courts $5 t"eir nature, are ill-equi((ed to )ull5 com(re"end t"e )orei'n (olic5 dimension o) a treat5, some o)

"ic" are "idden in s"ados and sil"ouettes.

I vote to 'rant t"e (etition.

PANGAN"-AN, 4, dissentin" opinion4

3ith due respect, 5 dissent.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt26


32/37

The ain issue before us is !hether Private Respondent Mark B. (ienez is entitled to the due process ri"hts of

notice and hearin" durin" the preliinar$ or evaluation sta"e of the e2tradition proceedin" a"ainst hi.

To Sta'ed in E#tradition

There are essentiall$ t!o sta"es in e2tradition proceedin"s& :)< the preliinar$ or evaluation sta"e, !hereb$ the

e2ecutive authorit$ of the re>uested state ascertains !hether the e2tradition re>uest is supported b$ thedocuents and inforation re>uired under the E2tradition Treat$4 and :< the e2tradition hearin", !hereb$ the

petition for e2tradition is heard before a court of Fustice, !hich deterines !hether the accused should be

e2tradited.

The instant petition refers onl$ to the first sta"e. Private respondent clais that he has a ri"ht to be notified and

to be heard at this earl$ sta"e. #o!ever, even the (onencia adits that neither the RP;97 E2tradition Treat$ nor

P )/0+ :the Philippine E2tradition a!< e2pressl$ re>uires the Philippine "overnent, upon receipt of the

re>uest for e2tradition, to "ive copies thereof and its supportin" docuents to the prospective e2traditee, uch

less to "ive hi an opportunit$ to be heard prior to the filin" of the petition in court.

Notabl$, international e2tradition proceedin"s in the 9nited 7tates do not include the "rant b$ the e2ecutiveauthorit$ 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 consider the evidence subitted in support of

the e2tradition re>uest. 5n contrast, in interstate rendition, the "overnor ust, upon deand, furnish the fu"itive

or his attorne$ copies of the re>uest and its accopan$in" docuents, pursuant to statutor$ provisions. ) 5n the

Philippines, there is no siilar statutor$ provision.

Evaluation Sta'e Essentiall5 Ministerial

The evaluation sta"e sipl$ involves the ascertainent b$ the forei"n affairs secretar$ of !hether the e2tradition

re>uest is accopanied b$ the docuents stated in para"raphs and *, Article of the Treat$, relatin" to theidentit$ and the probable location of the fu"itive4 the facts of the offense and the procedural histor$ of the case4

provisions of the la! describin" the essential eleents of the offense char"ed and the punishent therefor4 its

prescriptive period4 such evidence as !ould provide probable cause for the arrest and the coittal for trial of

the fu"itive4 and copies of the !arrant or order of arrest and char"in" docuent. The forei"n affairs secretar$

also sees to it that these accopan$in" docuents have been certified b$ the principal diploatic or consular

officer of the Philippines in the 9nited 7tates, and that the$ are in En"lish lan"ua"e or have En"lish translations.

Pursuant to Article * of the Treat$, he also deterines !hether the re>uest is politicall$ 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" docuents are

sufficient and coplete in for and substance, he shall deliver the sae to the Fustice secretar$, !ho shalliediatel$ desi"nate and authorize an attorne$ in his office to take char"e of the case. The la!$er desi"nated

shall then file a !ritten petition !ith the proper re"ional trial court, !ith a pra$er that the court take the

e2tradition re>uest under

Extrat Procedure

Documents

Transcript of Extrat Procedure