Secretary of Justice vs Lantion

Facts:
On January 13, 1977 P.D. 1069 was issued prescribing the Procedure of the Extradition of
Persons who have committed Crimes in a Foreign Country. The Decree is founded on The
Doctrine of Incorporation under the Constitution Art II, Sec 2 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution.
On November 13, 1994 Justice Secretary Franklin Drilon signed in Manila the Extradition
Treaty Between the Government of the Philippines and the Government of U.S.A. It was
ratified by the Senate.
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign
Affairs of U. S. a request for the extradition of Mark Jimenez to the United States who are
charged in the U.S. with the violation of the following: conspiracy, attempt to evade tax, false
statement or entry, election contributions in the name of another.
Pending evaluation of the extradition documents, Mark Jimenez, through a counsel, on July
1, 1999, requested copies of the official extradition request from the U.S. Government as
well as all documents and papers submitted therewith, and that he be given ample time to
comment on the request after he shall received copies of the requested papers.
Mark Jimenez insisted the constitutional rights particularly the following:
1. the right to be furnished the request and supporting papers;
2. the right to be heard which consists in having a reasonable period of time to oppose the
request, and to present evidence is support of the opposition;
The Depart of Justice Denied the request.
On Aug 6, 1999 Mark Jimenez filed with the R.T.C against the Secretary of Justice,
Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the NBI for Mandamus (to compel them to
furnish to Mark Jimenez the extradition documents.), Certiorari (to set aside the Sec. of
Justice letter dated July 13, 1999), Prohibition (to restrain the Sec of Justice from
considering the extradition request).
On August 10, 1999 the Judge ordered:
The Secretary of Justice et al ordered to maintain the status quo by refraining from
committing the acts complained of.

Thus this petition, arguing that Honorable Lantion (Presiding Judge of RTC Manila)acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
abuse discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the TRO:
1. by ordering the Secretary of Justice to refrain from committing the acts complained of
(i.e to desist from refusing Mark Jimenez access to the official extradition request and
documents.)
2. Secretary of Justice was unqualifiedly prevented from performing legal duties under the
extradition treaty and the Philippine Extradition Law.
Issue:
Would Mark Jimenez entitlement to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the
proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties of the Philippine Government under the
RP-US Extradition Treaty?
Held:
Petition Dismissed.
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

Gov. of Hongkong Special Administrative Region vs. Hon. Felixberto Olalia

FACTS:
Juan Antonio Munoz, who was charged before the Hongkong Court with three (3) counts of
the offense of accepting an advantage as an agent, conspiracy to defraud, was penalized
by a common law of Hongkong. A warrant of arrest was issued and if convicted, he may
face jail terms.
On September 23, 1999, He was arrested and detained.
On November 22, 1999, Hongkong Special Administrative Region filed with the RTC of
Manila a petition for his extradition.
Juan Antonio Munoz filed a petition for bail, which Judge Felixberto Olalia granted.
Petitioner (Hongkong Administrative), filed a petition to vacate such order, but it was denied
by the same judge.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Juan Antonio Munoz has the right to post bail when there is nothing in the
Constitution or Statutory law providing a potential extradite a right to bail.
HELD:
The Philippines committed to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the

worth and dignity of every person (Sec. 2 Art II 1987 Constitution) have the obligation to
make available to every person under detention such remedies which safeguard their
fundamental right to liberty.
The right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail must be viewed in the light of the
various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and
protection of human rights. Under these treaties, the presumption lies in favor of human
liberty.
While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extradite, however,
there is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, aright to due process
under the Constitution.
The time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda demands that the Philippines honor its
obligations under the Extradition Treaty it entered into with the Hongkong Special
Administrative Region. Failure to comply with these obligations is a setback in our foreign
relations and defeats the purpose of extradition.

Rodriguez vs Presiding Judge Feb. 27 2006

FACTS:
After the arrest of petitioners Eduardo Tolentino Rodriguez and Imelda Gener Rodriguez,
they applied for bail which the trial court granted on September 25, 2001. They posted cash
bonds for the bail set for P1M for each. The US government moved for reconsideration of
the grant of bail which was denied. The US government filed a petition for certiorari entitled
Govt of the USA v. Hon. Ponferrada where the court directed the trial court to resolve the
matter of bail guided by this courts ruling on Government of the USA v. Hon.
Purganan. The lower court, without prior notice and hearing, cancelled the cash bond of
the petitioners and ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Petitioners filed a very
urgent motion for the reconsideration of the cancellation of their bail which was
denied. Hence, this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition directed against the
order for cancellation of cash bond and issuance of a warrant of arrest.
ISSUE: Whether or NOT there should be notice and hearing before the cancellation of bail
HELD: YES. Petition is GRANTED IN PART. SET ASIDE for petitioner IMELDA GENER

RODRIGUEZ.
The grant of the bail, presupposes that the co-petitioner has already presented evidence to
prove her right to be on bail, that she is no flight risk, and the trial court had already
exercised its sound discretion and had already determined that under the Constitution and
laws in force, co-petitioner is entitled to provisional release.
Under these premises, co-petitioner Imelda Gener Rodriguez has offered to go on
voluntary extradition; that she and her husband had posted a cash bond of P1 million each;
that her husband had already gone on voluntary extradition and is presently in the USA
undergoing trial; that the passport of co-petitioner is already in the possession of the
authorities; that she never attempted to flee; that there is an existing hold-departure order
against her; and that she is now in her 60s, sickly and under medical treatment, we believe
that the benefits of continued temporary liberty on bail should not be revoked and their grant
of bail should not be cancelled, without the co-petitioner being given notice and without her
being heard why her temporary liberty should not be discontinued. Absent prior notice and
hearing, the bails cancellation was in violation of her right to due process.
We emphasize that bail may be granted to a possible extraditee only upon a clear and
convincing showing that:
1) he will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and
2) there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances