MONZON, Jessa Marie M.

LAW 2E

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, petitioner, vs. HON. RALPH C. LANTION, Presiding Judge,

Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 25, and MARK B. JIMENEZ, respondents.
[G.R. No. 139465. January 18, 2000]

FACTS:

Department of Justice (DOJ) received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S. a
request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the U.S. for violation of
Conspiracy to Commit Offence, Attempt to Evade Tax, Fraud by Wire, Radio or Television, False
Statement and Election Contribution in Name of Another.

During the evaluation process of the extradition the private respondent requested the
petitioner, Secretary of Justice, to furnish him copies of the extradition request from the U.S.
government, that he be given ample time to comment regarding the extradition request against him
after he shall have received copies of the requested papers, and to suspend the proceeding in the
meantime.

The petitioner denied the request for the consistency of Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition
Treaty stated in Article 7 that the Philippine Government must present the interests of the United
States in any proceedings arising out of a request for extradition.

Secretary of Justice Franklin Drilon, representing the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines, signed in Manila the “Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Philippines
and the Government of the U.S.A. The Philippine Senate ratified the said Treaty.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the private respondent is entitled to the due process right to notice and
hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process

HELD:

The human rights of person, whether citizen or alien , and the rights of the accused
guaranteed in our Constitution should take precedence over treaty rights claimed by a contracting
state. The duties of the government to the individual deserve preferential consideration when they
collide with its treaty obligations to the government of another state. This is so although we
recognize treaties as a source of binding obligations under generally accepted principles of
international law incorporated in our Constitution as part of the law of the land.
 The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with
situation in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the
provision of the constitution or statute of the local state.

Petitioner (Secretary of Justice) is ordered to furnish Mark Jimenez copies of the

extradition request and its supporting papers, and to grant him (Mark Jimenez) a reasonable period
within which to file his comment with supporting evidence.

“Under the Doctrine of Incorporation, rules of international law form part of the law of the
land and no further legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic
sphere.

“The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with
situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the
provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state.

“Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both since it is to
be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted
principles of international law in observance of the incorporation clause in the above cited
constitutional provision.

“In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made
between a rule of international law and a municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law
should be upheld by the municipal courts, for the reason that such courts are organs of municipal
law and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances.

“The fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not pertain
to or imply the primacy of international law over national or municipal law in the municipal sphere.
The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules of international law
are given equal standing with, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments. Accordingly,
the principle lex posterior derogate priori takes effect – a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute
may repeal a treaty. In states where the Constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the
Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict
with the constitution