EN BANC A)......

18 USC 371 (Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United

States; two [2] counts; Maximum Penalty 5 years on each count);
[G.R. No. 139465. January 18, 2000]
B)......26 USC 7201 (Attempt to evade or defeat tax; four [4] counts;
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, petitioner, vs. HON. RALPH C. LANTION, Presiding Maximum Penalty 5 years on each count);
Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 25, and MARK B.
JIMENEZ, respondents. C)......18 USC 1343 (Fraud by wire, radio, or television; two [2] counts;
Maximum Penalty 5 years on each count);
DECISION
D)......18 USC 1001 (False statement or entries; six [6] counts; Maximum
MELO, J.: Penalty 5 years on each count);

The individual citizen is but a speck of particle or molecule vis--vis the vast and E)......2 USC 441f (Election contributions in name of another; thirty-three
overwhelming powers of government. His only guarantee against oppression and tyranny are [33] counts; Maximum Penalty less than one year).
his fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights which shield him in times of need. The Court
is now called to decide whether to uphold a citizens basic due process rights, or the (p. 14, Rollo.)
governments ironclad duties under a treaty. The bugle sounds and this Court must once again
act as the faithful guardian of the fundamental writ. On the same day, petitioner issued Department Order No. 249 designating and authorizing a
panel of attorneys to take charge of and to handle the case pursuant to Section 5(1) of
The petition at our doorstep is cast against the following factual backdrop: Presidential Decree No. 1069. Accordingly, the panel began with the "technical evaluation and
assessment" of the extradition request and the documents in support thereof. The panel found
On January 13, 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1069 that the "official English translation of some documents in Spanish were not attached to the
"Prescribing the Procedure for the Extradition of Persons Who Have Committed Crimes in a request and that there are some other matters that needed to be addressed" (p. 15,
Foreign Country". The Decree is founded on: the doctrine of incorporation under the Rollo).
Constitution; the mutual concern for the suppression of crime both in the state where it was
committed and the state where the criminal may have escaped; the extradition treaty with the Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition documents, private respondent, through
Republic of Indonesia and the intention of the Philippines to enter into similar treaties with counsel, wrote a letter dated July 1, 1999 addressed to petitioner requesting copies of the
other interested countries; and the need for rules to guide the executive department and the official extradition request from the U. S. Government, as well as all documents and papers
courts in the proper implementation of said treaties. submitted therewith; and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall
have received copies of the requested papers. Private respondent also requested that the
On November 13, 1994, then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon, representing the proceedings on the matter be held in abeyance in the meantime.
Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed in Manila the "Extradition Treaty
Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United Later, private respondent requested that preliminarily, he be given at least a copy of, or access
States of America" (hereinafter referred to as the RP-US Extradition Treaty). The Senate, by to, the request of the United States Government, and after receiving a copy of the Diplomatic
way of Resolution No. 11, expressed its concurrence in the ratification of said treaty. It also Note, a period of time to amplify on his request.
expressed its concurrence in the Diplomatic Notes correcting Paragraph (5)(a), Article 7
thereof (on the admissibility of the documents accompanying an extradition request upon In response to private respondents July 1, 1999 letter, petitioner, in a reply-letter dated July 13,
certification by the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the requested state resident in 1999 (but received by private respondent only on August 4, 1999), denied the foregoing
the Requesting State). requests for the following reasons:

On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs 1. We find it premature to furnish you with copies of the extradition
U. S. Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent request and supporting documents from the United States Government,
Mark Jimenez to the United States. Attached to the Note Verbale were the Grand Jury pending evaluation by this Department of the sufficiency of the extradition
Indictment, the warrant of arrest issued by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of documents submitted in accordance with the provisions of the extradition
Florida, and other supporting documents for said extradition. Based on the papers submitted, treaty and our extradition law. Article 7 of the Extradition Treaty between
private respondent appears to be charged in the United States with violation of the following the Philippines and the United States enumerates the documentary
provisions of the United States Code (USC): requirements and establishes the procedures under which the documents
submitted shall be received and admitted as evidence. Evidentiary
 requirements under our domestic law are also set forth in Section 4 of P.D. from filing an extradition petition in court; and to enjoin the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and
No. 1069. the Director of the NBI from performing any act directed to the extradition of private
respondent to the United States), with an application for the issuance of a temporary
Evaluation by this Department of the aforementioned documents is not a restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction (pp. 104-105, Rollo).
preliminary investigation nor akin to preliminary investigation of criminal
cases. We merely determine whether the procedures and requirements The aforementioned petition was docketed as Civil Case No. 99-94684 and thereafter raffled
under the relevant law and treaty have been complied with by the to Branch 25 of said regional trial court stationed in Manila which is presided over by the
Requesting Government. The constitutionally guaranteed rights of the Honorable Ralph C. Lantion.
accused in all criminal prosecutions are therefore not available.
After due notice to the parties, the case was heard on August 9, 1999. Petitioner, who appeared
It is only after the filing of the petition for extradition when the person in his own behalf, moved that he be given ample time to file a memorandum, but the same was
sought to be extradited will be furnished by the court with copies of the denied.
petition, request and extradition documents and this Department will not
pose any objection to a request for ample time to evaluate said On August 10, 1999, respondent judge issued an order dated the previous day, disposing:
documents.
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby Orders the respondents, namely: the
2. The formal request for extradition of the United States contains grand Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of
jury information and documents obtained through grand jury process the National Bureau of Investigation, their agents and/or representatives to
covered by strict secrecy rules under United States law. The United States maintain the status quo by refraining from committing the acts complained
had to secure orders from the concerned District Courts authorizing the of; from conducting further proceedings in connection with the request of
United States to disclose certain grand jury information to Philippine the United States Government for the extradition of the petitioner; from
government and law enforcement personnel for the purpose of extradition filing the corresponding Petition with a Regional Trial court; and from
of Mr. Jimenez. Any further disclosure of the said information is not performing any act directed to the extradition of the petitioner to the
authorized by the United States District Courts. In this particular United States, for a period of twenty (20) days from service on
extradition request the United States Government requested the Philippine respondents of this Order, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 58 of the 1997
Government to prevent unauthorized disclosure of the subject information. Rules of Court.
This Departments denial of your request is consistent with Article 7 of the
RP-US Extradition Treaty which provides that the Philippine Government
must represent the interests of the United States in any proceedings arising The hearing as to whether or not this Court shall issue the preliminary
out of a request for extradition. The Department of Justice under P.D. No. injunction, as agreed upon by the counsels for the parties herein, is set on
1069 is the counsel of the foreign governments in all extradition requests. August 17, 1999 at 9:00 oclock in the morning. The respondents are,
likewise, ordered to file their written comment and/or opposition to the
issuance of a Preliminary Injunction on or before said date.
3. This Department is not in a position to hold in abeyance proceedings in
connection with an extradition request. Article 26 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties, to which we are a party provides that SO ORDERED.
"[E]very treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be
performed by them in good faith". Extradition is a tool of criminal law (pp. 110-111, Rollo.)
enforcement and to be effective, requests for extradition or surrender of
accused or convicted persons must be processed expeditiously. Forthwith, petitioner initiated the instant proceedings, arguing that:

(pp. 77-78, Rollo.) PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF

JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
Such was the state of affairs when, on August 6, 1999, private respondent filed with the AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region a petition against the Secretary of ISSUING THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Justice, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and the Director of the National Bureau of BECAUSE: 
Investigation, for mandamus (to compel herein petitioner to furnish private respondent the
extradition documents, to give him access thereto, and to afford him an opportunity to
comment on, or oppose, the extradition request, and thereafter to evaluate the request
impartially, fairly and objectively); certiorari (to set aside herein petitioners letter dated July
13, 1999); and prohibition (to restrain petitioner from considering the extradition request and
 I. The case was heard on oral argument on August 31, 1999, after which the parties, as directed,
filed their respective memoranda.
BY ORDERING HEREIN PETITIONER TO REFRAIN FROM
COMMITTING THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF, I. E., TO DESIST From the pleadings of the opposing parties, both procedural and substantive issues are patent.
FROM REFUSING PRIVATE RESPONDENT ACCESS TO THE However, a review of these issues as well as the extensive arguments of both parties, compel
OFFICIAL EXTRADITION REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS AND us to delineate the focal point raised by the pleadings: During the evaluation stage of the
FROM DENYING PRIVATE RESPONDENT AN OPPORTUNITY TO extradition proceedings, is private respondent entitled to the two basic due process rights of
FILE A COMMENT ON, OR OPPOSITION TO, THE REQUEST, THE notice and hearing? An affirmative answer would necessarily render the proceedings at the
MAIN PRAYER FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN THE PETITION trial court, moot and academic (the issues of which are substantially the same as those before
FOR MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION WAS, IN us now), while a negative resolution would call for the immediate lifting of the TRO issued by
EFFECT, GRANTED SO AS TO CONSTITUTE AN ADJUDICATION this Court dated August 24, 1999, thus allowing petitioner to fast-track the process leading to
ON THE MERITS OF THE MANDAMUS ISSUES; the filing of the extradition petition with the proper regional trial court. Corollarily, in the
event that private respondent is adjudged entitled to basic due process rights at the evaluation
II. stage of the extradition proceedings, would this entitlement constitute a breach of the legal
commitments and obligations of the Philippine Government under the RP-US Extradition
Treaty? And assuming that the result would indeed be a breach, is there any conflict between
PETITIONER WAS UNQUALIFIEDLY PREVENTED FROM private respondents basic due process rights and the provisions of the RP-US Extradition
PERFORMING LEGAL DUTIES UNDER THE EXTRADITION Treaty?
TREATY AND THE PHILIPPINE EXTRADITION LAW;
The issues having transcendental importance, the Court has elected to go directly into the
III. substantive merits of the case, brushing aside peripheral procedural matters which concern the
proceedings in Civil Case No. 99-94684, particularly the propriety of the filing of the petition
THE PETITION FOR (MANDAMUS), CERTIORARI AND therein, and of the issuance of the TRO of August 17, 1999 by the trial court.
PROHIBITION IS, ON ITS FACE, FORMALLY AND
SUBSTANTIALLY DEFICIENT; AND To be sure, the issues call for a review of the extradition procedure. The RP-US Extradition
Treaty which was executed only on November 13, 1994, ushered into force the implementing
IV. provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1069, also called as the Philippine Extradition Law.
Section 2(a) thereof defines extradition as "the removal of an accused from the Philippines
PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHT IN ESSE THAT NEEDS with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting
PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT, AND WILL NOT SUFFER state or government to hold him in connection with any criminal investigation directed against
ANY IRREPARABLE INJURY. him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the
requesting state or government." The portions of the Decree relevant to the instant case which
involves a charged and not convicted individual, are abstracted as follows:
(pp. 19-20, Rollo.)
The Extradition Request
On August 17, 1999, the Court required private respondent to file his comment. Also issued,
as prayed for, was a temporary restraining order (TRO) providing:
The request is made by the Foreign Diplomat of the Requesting State, addressed to the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and shall be accompanied by:
NOW, THEREFORE, effective immediately and continuing until further
orders from this Court, You, Respondent Judge Ralph C. Lantion, your
agents, representatives or any person or persons acting in your place or 1. The original or an authentic copy of the criminal charge and the warrant of arrest issued by
stead are hereby ORDERED to CEASE and DESIST from enforcing the the authority of the Requesting State having jurisdiction over the matter, or some other
assailed order dated August 9, 1999 issued by public respondent in Civil instruments having equivalent legal force;
Case No. 99-94684.
2. A recital of the acts for which extradition is requested, with the fullest particulars as to the
GIVEN by the Honorable HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR., Chief Justice, name and identity of the accused, his whereabouts in the Philippines, if known, the acts or
Supreme Court of the Philippines, this 17th day of August 1999. omissions complained of, and the time and place of the commission of these
acts;

(pp. 120-121, Rollo.)

3. The text of the applicable law or a statement of the contents of said law, and the designation 9. A copy of the charging document.
or description of the offense by the law, sufficient for evaluation of the request; and
(Paragraph 3, ibid.)
4. Such other documents or information in support of the request.
The executive authority (Secretary of Foreign Affairs) must also see to it that the
(Section 4, Presidential Decree No. 1069.) accompanying documents received in support of the request had been certified by the principal
diplomatic or consular officer of the Requested State resident in the Requesting State
Section 5 of the Presidential Decree, which sets forth the duty of the Secretary of Foreign (Embassy Note No. 052 from U. S. Embassy; Embassy Note No. 951309 from the Department
Affairs, pertinently provides: of Foreign Affairs).

. . . (1) Unless it appears to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs that the In this light, Paragraph 3, Article 3 of the Treaty provides that "[e]xtradition shall not be
request fails to meet the requirements of this law and the relevant treaty or granted if the executive authority of the Requested State determines that the request is
convention, he shall forward the request together with the related politically motivated, or that the offense is a military offense which is not punishable under
documents to the Secretary of Justice, who shall immediately designate non-military penal legislation."
and authorize an attorney in his office to take charge of the case.
The Extradition Petition
The above provision shows only too clearly that the executive authority given the task of
evaluating the sufficiency of the request and the supporting documents is the Secretary of Upon a finding made by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs that the extradition request and its
Foreign Affairs. What then is the coverage of this task? supporting documents are sufficient and complete in form and substance, he shall deliver the
same to the Secretary of Justice, who shall immediately designate and authorize an attorney in
In accordance with Paragraphs 2 and 3, Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty, the his office to take charge of the case (Paragraph [1], Section 5, P. D. No. 1069). The lawyer
executive authority must ascertain whether or not the request is supported by: designated shall then file a written petition with the proper regional trial court of the province
or city, with a prayer that the court take the extradition request under consideration (Paragraph
[2], ibid.).
1. Documents, statements, or other types of information which describe the identity and
probable location of the person sought;
The presiding judge of the regional trial court, upon receipt of the petition for extradition,
shall, as soon as practicable, issue an order summoning the prospective extraditee to appear
2. A statement of the facts of the offense and the procedural history of the case; and to answer the petition on the day and hour fixed in the order. The judge may issue a
warrant of arrest if it appears that the immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused
3. A statement of the provisions of the law describing the essential elements of the offense for will best serve the ends of justice (Paragraph [1], Section 6, ibid.), particularly to prevent the
which extradition is requested; flight of the prospective extraditee.

4. A statement of the provisions of law describing the punishment for the The Extradition Hearing
offense;
The Extradition Law does not specifically indicate whether the extradition proceeding is
5. A statement of the provisions of the law describing any time limit on the prosecution or the criminal, civil, or a special proceeding. Nevertheless, Paragraph [1], Section 9 thereof
execution of punishment for the offense; provides that in the hearing of the extradition petition, the provisions of the Rules of Court,
insofar as practicable and not inconsistent with the summary nature of the proceedings, shall
6. Documents, statements, or other types of information specified in paragraph 3 or paragraph apply. During the hearing, Section 8 of the Decree provides that the attorney having charge of
4 of said Article, as applicable. the case may, upon application by the Requesting State, represent the latter throughout the
proceedings.

(Paragraph 2, Article 7, Presidential Decree No. 1069.)

Upon conclusion of the hearing, the court shall render a decision granting the extradition and
giving the reasons therefor upon a showing of the existence of a prima facie case, or dismiss
7. Such evidence as, according to the law of the Requested State, would provide probable the petition (Section 10, ibid.). Said decision is appealable to the Court of Appeals, whose
cause for his arrest and committal for trial if the offense had been committed there; decision shall be final and immediately executory (Section 12, ibid.). The provisions of the
Rules of Court governing appeal in criminal cases in the Court of Appeals shall apply in the
8. A copy of the warrant or order of arrest issued by a judge or other competent authority; and aforementioned appeal, except for the required 15-day period to file brief (Section 13, ibid.).
The trial court determines whether or not the offense mentioned in the petition is extraditable the requirements of law. The Secretary of Justice, eminent as he is in the field of law, could
based on the application of the dual criminality rule and other conditions mentioned in Article not privately review the papers all by himself. He had to officially constitute a panel of
2 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty. The trial court also determines whether or not the offense attorneys. How then could the DFA Secretary or his undersecretary, in less than one day, make
for which extradition is requested is a political one (Paragraph [1], Article 3, RP-US the more authoritative determination?
Extradition Treaty).
The evaluation process, just like the extradition proceedings proper, belongs to a class by
With the foregoing abstract of the extradition proceedings as backdrop, the following query itself. It is sui generis. It is not a criminal investigation, but it is also erroneous to say that it is
presents itself: What is the nature of the role of the Department of Justice at the evaluation purely an exercise of ministerial functions. At such stage, the executive authority has the
stage of the extradition proceedings? power: (a) to make a technical assessment of the completeness and sufficiency of the
extradition papers; (b) to outrightly deny the request if on its face and on the face of the
A strict observance of the Extradition Law indicates that the only duty of the Secretary of supporting documents the crimes indicated are not extraditable; and (c) to make a
Justice is to file the extradition petition after the request and all the supporting papers are determination whether or not the request is politically motivated, or that the offense is a
forwarded to him by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. It is the latter official who is authorized military one which is not punishable under non-military penal legislation (tsn, August 31,
to evaluate the extradition papers, to assure their sufficiency, and under Paragraph [3], Article 1999, pp. 28-29; Article 2 & and Paragraph [3], Article 3, RP-US Extradition Treaty). Hence,
3 of the Treaty, to determine whether or not the request is politically motivated, or that the said process may be characterized as an investigative or inquisitorial process in contrast to a
offense is a military offense which is not punishable under non-military penal legislation. Ipso proceeding conducted in the exercise of an administrative bodys quasi-judicial
facto, as expressly provided in Paragraph [1], Section 5 of the Extradition Law, the Secretary power.
of Justice has the ministerial duty of filing the extradition papers.
In administrative law, a quasi-judicial proceeding involves: (a) taking and evaluation of
However, looking at the factual milieu of the case before us, it would appear that there was evidence; (b) determining facts based upon the evidence presented; and (c) rendering an order
failure to abide by the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1069. For while it is true that the or decision supported by the facts proved (De Leon, Administrative Law: Text and Cases,
extradition request was delivered to the Department of Foreign Affairs on June 17, 1999, the 1993 ed., p. 198, citing Morgan vs. United States, 304 U.S. 1). Inquisitorial power, which is
following day or less than 24 hours later, the Department of Justice received the request, also known as examining or investigatory power, is one of the determinative powers of an
apparently without the Department of Foreign Affairs discharging its duty of thoroughly administrative body which better enables it to exercise its quasi-judicial authority (Cruz, Phil.
evaluating the same and its accompanying documents. The statement of an assistant secretary Administrative Law, 1996 ed., p. 26). This power allows the administrative body to inspect the
at the Department of Foreign Affairs that his Department, in this regard, is merely acting as a records and premises, and investigate the activities, of persons or entities coming under its
post office, for which reason he simply forwarded the request to the Department of Justice, jurisdiction (Ibid., p. 27), or to require disclosure of information by means of accounts,
indicates the magnitude of the error of the Department of Foreign Affairs in taking lightly its records, reports, testimony of witnesses, production of documents, or otherwise (De Leon, op.
responsibilities. Thereafter, the Department of Justice took it upon itself to determine the cit., p. 64).
completeness of the documents and to evaluate the same to find out whether they comply with
the requirements laid down in the Extradition Law and the RP-US Extradition Treaty. The power of investigation consists in gathering, organizing, and analyzing evidence, which is
Petitioner ratiocinates in this connection that although the Department of Justice had no a useful aid or tool in an administrative agencys performance of its rule-making or quasi-
obligation to evaluate the extradition documents, the Department also had to go over them so judicial functions. Notably, investigation is indispensable to prosecution.
as to be able to prepare an extradition petition (tsn, August 31, 1999, pp. 24-25). Notably, it
was also at this stage where private respondent insisted on the following: (1) the right to be In Ruperto v. Torres (100 Phil. 1098 [1957], unreported), the Court had occasion to rule on the
furnished the request and the supporting papers; (2) the right to be heard which consists in functions of an investigatory body with the sole power of investigation. It does not exercise
having a reasonable period of time to oppose the request, and to present evidence in support of judicial functions and its power is limited to investigating the facts and making findings in
the opposition; and (3) that the evaluation proceedings be held in abeyance pending the filing respect thereto. The Court laid down the test of determining whether an administrative body is
of private respondent's opposition to the request. exercising judicial functions or merely investigatory functions: Adjudication signifies the
exercise of power and authority to adjudicate upon the rights and obligations of the parties
The two Departments seem to have misread the scope of their duties and authority, one before it. Hence, if the only purpose for investigation is to evaluate evidence submitted before
abdicating its powers and the other enlarging its commission. The Department of Foreign it based on the facts and circumstances presented to it, and if the agency is not authorized to
Affairs, moreover, has, through the Solicitor General, filed a manifestation that it is adopting make a final pronouncement affecting the parties, then there is an absence of judicial
the instant petition as its own, indirectly conveying the message that if it were to evaluate the discretion and judgment.
extradition request, it would not allow private respondent to participate in the process of
evaluation. The above description in Ruperto applies to an administrative body authorized to evaluate
extradition documents. The body has no power to adjudicate in regard to the rights and
Plainly then, the record cannot support the presumption of regularity that the Department of obligations of both the Requesting State and the prospective extraditee. Its only power is to
Foreign Affairs thoroughly reviewed the extradition request and supporting documents and determine whether the papers comply with the requirements of the law and the treaty and,
that it arrived at a well-founded judgment that the request and its annexed documents satisfy therefore, sufficient to be the basis of an extradition petition. Such finding is thus merely
initial and not final. The body has no power to determine whether or not the extradition should Cabal vs. Kapunan (supra) involved an administrative charge of unexplained wealth against a
be effected. That is the role of the court. The bodys power is limited to an initial finding of respondent which was filed under Republic Act No. 1379, or the Anti-Graft Law. Again, we
whether or not the extradition petition can be filed in court. therein ruled that since the investigation may result in forfeiture of property, the administrative
proceedings are deemed criminal or penal, and such forfeiture partakes the nature of a penalty.
It is to be noted, however, that in contrast to ordinary investigations, the evaluation procedure There is also the earlier case of Almeda, Sr. vs. Perez (5 SCRA 970 [1962]), where the Court,
is characterized by certain peculiarities. Primarily, it sets into motion the wheels of the citing American jurisprudence, laid down the test to determine whether a proceeding is civil or
extradition process. Ultimately, it may result in the deprivation of liberty of the prospective criminal: If the proceeding is under a statute such that if an indictment is presented the
extraditee. This deprivation can be effected at two stages: First, the provisional arrest of the forfeiture can be included in the criminal case, such proceeding is criminal in nature, although
prospective extraditee pending the submission of the request. This is so because the Treaty it may be civil in form; and where it must be gathered from the statute that the action is meant
provides that in case of urgency, a contracting party may request the provisional arrest of the to be criminal in its nature, it cannot be considered as civil. If, however, the proceeding does
person sought pending presentation of the request (Paragraph [1], Article 9, RP-US not involve the conviction of the wrongdoer for the offense charged, the proceeding is civil in
Extradition Treaty), but he shall be automatically discharged after 60 days if no request is nature.
submitted (Paragraph 4). Presidential Decree No. 1069 provides for a shorter period of 20 days
after which the arrested person could be discharged (Section 20[d]). Logically, although the The cases mentioned above refer to an impending threat of deprivation of ones property or
Extradition Law is silent on this respect, the provisions only mean that once a request is property right. No less is this true, but even more so in the case before us, involving as it does
forwarded to the Requested State, the prospective extraditee may be continuously detained, or the possible deprivation of liberty, which, based on the hierarchy of constitutionally protected
if not, subsequently rearrested (Paragraph [5], Article 9, RP-US Extradition Treaty), for he rights, is placed second only to life itself and enjoys precedence over property, for while
will only be discharged if no request is submitted. Practically, the purpose of this detention is forfeited property can be returned or replaced, the time spent in incarceration is irretrievable
to prevent his possible flight from the Requested State. Second, the temporary arrest of the and beyond recompense.
prospective extraditee during the pendency of the extradition petition in court (Section 6,
Presidential Decree No. 1069). By comparison, a favorable action in an extradition request exposes a person to eventual
extradition to a foreign country, thus saliently exhibiting the criminal or penal aspect of the
Clearly, there is an impending threat to a prospective extraditees liberty as early as during the process. In this sense, the evaluation procedure is akin to a preliminary investigation since
evaluation stage. It is not only an imagined threat to his liberty, but a very imminent both procedures may have the same result the arrest and imprisonment of the respondent or the
one. person charged. Similar to the evaluation stage of extradition proceedings, a preliminary
investigation, which may result in the filing of an information against the respondent, can
Because of these possible consequences, we conclude that the evaluation process is akin to an possibly lead to his arrest, and to the deprivation of his liberty.
administrative agency conducting an investigative proceeding, the consequences of which are
essentially criminal since such technical assessment sets off or commences the procedure for, Petitioners reliance on Wright vs. Court of Appeals (235 SCRA 241 [1992]) (p. 8, Petitioners
and ultimately, the deprivation of liberty of a prospective extraditee. As described by Memorandum) that the extradition treaty is neither a piece of criminal legislation nor a
petitioner himself, this is a "tool" for criminal law enforcement (p. 78, Rollo). In essence, criminal procedural statute is not well-taken. Wright is not authority for petitioners conclusion
therefore, the evaluation process partakes of the nature of a criminal investigation. In a number that his preliminary processing is not akin to a preliminary investigation. The characterization
of cases, we had occasion to make available to a respondent in an administrative case or of a treaty in Wright was in reference to the applicability of the prohibition against an ex post
investigation certain constitutional rights that are ordinarily available only in criminal facto law. It had nothing to do with the denial of the right to notice, information, and hearing.
prosecutions. Further, as pointed out by Mr. Justice Mendoza during the oral arguments, there
are rights formerly available only at the trial stage that had been advanced to an earlier stage in As early as 1884, the United States Supreme Court ruled that "any legal proceeding enforced
the proceedings, such as the right to counsel and the right against self-incrimination (tsn, by public authority, whether sanctioned by age or custom, or newly devised in the discretion
August 31, 1999, p. 135;Escobedo vs. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478; Gideon vs. Wainwright, 372 U.S. of the legislative power, in furtherance of the general public good, which regards and
335; Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436). preserves these principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law"
(Hurtado vs. California, 110 U.S. 516). Compliance with due process requirements cannot be
In Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners (28 SCRA 344 [1969]), we held that the right deemed non-compliance with treaty commitments.
against self-incrimination under Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which is
ordinarily available only in criminal prosecutions, extends to administrative proceedings The United States and the Philippines share a mutual concern about the suppression and
which possess a criminal or penal aspect, such as an administrative investigation of a licensed punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions. At the same time, both States accord
physician who is charged with immorality, which could result in his loss of the privilege to common due process protection to their respective citizens.
practice medicine if found guilty. The Court, citing the earlier case of Cabal vs. Kapunan (6
SCRA 1059 [1962]), pointed out that the revocation of ones license as a medical practitioner,
is an even greater deprivation than forfeiture of property. The due process clauses in the American and Philippine Constitutions are not only worded in
exactly identical language and terminology, but more importantly, they are alike in what their
respective Supreme Courts have expounded as the spirit with which the provisions are
informed and impressed, the elasticity in their interpretation, their dynamic and resilient
character which make them capable of meeting every modern problem, and their having been Applying the above principles to the case at bar, the query may be asked: Does the evaluation
designed from earliest time to the present to meet the exigencies of an undefined and stage of the extradition proceedings fall under any of the described situations mentioned
expanding future. The requirements of due process are interpreted in both the United States above?
and the Philippines as not denying to the law the capacity for progress and improvement.
Toward this effect and in order to avoid the confines of a legal straitjacket, the courts instead Let us take a brief look at the nature of American extradition proceedings which are quite
prefer to have the meaning of the due process clause "gradually ascertained by the process of noteworthy considering that the subject treaty involves the U.S. Government.
inclusion and exclusion in the course of the decisions of cases as they arise" (Twining vs. New
Jersey, 211 U.S. 78). Capsulized, it refers to "the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play"
(Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Owners Association vs. City Mayor of Manila, 20 SCRA 849 American jurisprudence distinguishes between interstate rendition or extradition which is
[1967]). It relates to certain immutable principles of justice which inhere in the very idea of based on the Extradition Clause in the U.S. Constitution (Art. IV, 2 cl 2), and international
free government (Holden vs. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366). extradition proceedings. In interstate rendition or extradition, the governor of the asylum state
has the duty to deliver the fugitive to the demanding state. The Extradition Clause and the
implementing statute are given a liberal construction to carry out their manifest purpose,
Due process is comprised of two components substantive due process which requires the which is to effect the return as swiftly as possible of persons for trial to the state in which they
intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty, or have been charged with crime (31A Am Jur 2d 754-755). In order to achieve extradition of an
property, and procedural due process which consists of the two basic rights of notice and alleged fugitive, the requisition papers or the demand must be in proper form, and all the
hearing, as well as the guarantee of being heard by an impartial and competent tribunal (Cruz, elements or jurisdictional facts essential to the extradition must appear on the face of the
Constitutional Law, 1993 Ed., pp. 102-106). papers, such as the allegation that the person demanded was in the demanding state at the time
the offense charged was committed, and that the person demanded is charged with the
True to the mandate of the due process clause, the basic rights of notice and hearing pervade commission of the crime or that prosecution has been begun in the demanding state before
not only in criminal and civil proceedings, but in administrative proceedings as well. Non- some court or magistrate (35 C.J.S. 406-407). The extradition documents are then filed with
observance of these rights will invalidate the proceedings. Individuals are entitled to be the governor of the asylum state, and must contain such papers and documents prescribed by
notified of any pending case affecting their interests, and upon notice, they may claim the right statute, which essentially include a copy of the instrument charging the person demanded with
to appear therein and present their side and to refute the position of the opposing parties (Cruz, a crime, such as an indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate. Statutory requirements
Phil. Administrative Law, 1996 ed., p. 64). with respect to said charging instrument or papers are mandatory since said papers are
necessary in order to confer jurisdiction on the governor of the asylum state to effect the
In a preliminary investigation which is an administrative investigatory proceeding, Section 3, extradition (35 C.J.S. 408-410). A statutory provision requiring duplicate copies of the
Rule 112 of the Rules of Court guarantees the respondents basic due process rights, granting indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction or sentence and other
him the right to be furnished a copy of the complaint, the affidavits, and other supporting instruments accompanying the demand or requisitions be furnished and delivered to the
documents, and the right to submit counter-affidavits and other supporting documents within fugitive or his attorney is directory. However, the right being such a basic one has been held
ten days from receipt thereof. Moreover, the respondent shall have the right to examine all to be a right mandatory on demand (Ibid., p. 410, citing Ex parte Moore, 256 S.W. 2d 103,
other evidence submitted by the complainant. 158 Tex. Cr. 407 and Ex parte Tucker, Cr., 324, S.W.2d 853).

These twin rights may, however, be considered dispensable in certain instances, such as: In international proceedings, extradition treaties generally provide for the presentation to the
executive authority of the Requested State of a requisition or demand for the return of the
alleged offender, and the designation of the particular officer having authority to act in behalf
1. In proceedings where there is an urgent need for immediate action, like the summary of the demanding nation (31A Am Jur 2d 815).
abatement of a nuisance per se (Article 704, Civil Code), the preventive suspension of a public
servant facing administrative charges (Section 63, Local Government Code, B. P. Blg. 337),
the padlocking of filthy restaurants or theaters showing obscene movies or like establishments In petitioners memorandum filed on September 15, 1999, he attached thereto a letter dated
which are immediate threats to public health and decency, and the cancellation of a passport of September 13, 1999 from the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice,
a person sought for criminal prosecution; summarizing the U.S. extradition procedures and principles, which are basically governed by a
combination of treaties (with special reference to the RP-US Extradition Treaty), federal
statutes, and judicial decisions, to wit:
2. Where there is tentativeness of administrative action, that is, where the respondent is not
precluded from enjoying the right to notice and hearing at a later time without prejudice to the
person affected, such as the summary distraint and levy of the property of a delinquent 1. All requests for extradition are transmitted through the diplomatic channel. In urgent cases,
taxpayer, and the replacement of a temporary appointee; and requests for the provisional arrest of an individual may be made directly by the Philippine
Department of Justice to the U.S. Department of Justice, and vice-versa. In the event of a
provisional arrest, a formal request for extradition is transmitted subsequently through the
3. Where the twin rights have previously been offered but the right to exercise them had not diplomatic channel.
been claimed.
2. The Department of State forwards the incoming Philippine extradition request to the Private respondent asks what prejudice will be caused to the U.S. Government should the
Department of Justice. Before doing so, the Department of State prepares a declaration person sought to be extradited be given due process rights by the Philippines in the evaluation
confirming that a formal request has been made, that the treaty is in full force and effect, that stage. He emphasizes that petitioners primary concern is the possible delay in the evaluation
under Article 17 thereof the parties provide reciprocal legal representation in extradition process.
proceedings, that the offenses are covered as extraditable offenses under Article 2 thereof, and
that the documents have been authenticated in accordance with the federal statute that ensures We agree with private respondents citation of an American Supreme Court ruling:
admissibility at any subsequent extradition hearing.
The establishment of prompt efficacious procedures to achieve legitimate
3. A judge or magistrate judge is authorized to issue a warrant for the arrest of the prospective state ends is a proper state interest worthy of cognizance in constitutional
extraditee (18 U.S.C. 3184). Said judge or magistrate is authorized to hold a hearing to adjudication. But the Constitution recognizes higher values than speed and
consider the evidence offered in support of the extradition request (Ibid.) efficiency. Indeed, one might fairly say of the Bill of Rights in general,
and the Due Process Clause, in particular, that they were designed to
4. At the hearing, the court must determine whether the person arrested is extraditable to the protect the fragile values of a vulnerable citizenry from the overbearing
foreign country. The court must also determine that (a) it has jurisdiction over the defendant concern for efficiency and efficacy that may characterize praiseworthy
and jurisdiction to conduct the hearing; (b) the defendant is being sought for offenses for government officials no less, and perhaps more, than mediocre ones.
which the applicable treaty permits extradition; and (c) there is probable cause to believe that
the defendant is the person sought and that he committed the offenses charged (Stanley vs. Illinois, 404 U.S. 645, 656)
(Ibid.)
The United States, no doubt, shares the same interest as the Philippine
5. The judge or magistrate judge is vested with jurisdiction to certify extraditability after Government that no right that of liberty secured not only by the Bills of
having received a "complaint made under oath, charging any person found within his Rights of the Philippines Constitution but of the United States as well, is
jurisdiction" with having committed any of the crimes provided for by the governing treaty in sacrificed at the altar of expediency.
the country requesting extradition (Ibid.) [In this regard, it is noted that a long line of
American decisions pronounce that international extradition proceedings partake of the
character of a preliminary examination before a committing magistrate, rather than a trial of (pp. 40-41, Private Respondents Memorandum.)
the guilt or innocence of the alleged fugitive (31A Am Jur 2d 826).]
In the Philippine context, this Courts ruling is invoked:
6. If the court decides that the elements necessary for extradition are present, it incorporates its
determinations in factual findings and conclusions of law and certifies the persons One of the basic principles of the democratic system is that where the
extraditability. The court then forwards this certification of extraditability to the Department rights of the individual are concerned, the end does not justify the means.
of State for disposition by the Secretary of State. The ultimate decision whether to surrender It is not enough that there be a valid objective; it is also necessary that the
an individual rests with the Secretary of State (18 U.S.C. 3186). means employed to pursue it be in keeping with the Constitution. Mere
expediency will not excuse constitutional shortcuts. There is no question
7. The subject of an extradition request may not litigate questions concerning the motives of that not even the strongest moral conviction or the most urgent public
the requesting government in seeking his extradition. However, a person facing extradition need, subject only to a few notable exceptions, will excuse the bypassing
may present whatever information he deems relevant to the Secretary of State, who makes the of an individuals rights. It is no exaggeration to say that a person invoking
final determination whether to surrender an individual to the foreign government concerned. a right guaranteed under Article III of the Constitution is a majority of one
even as against the rest of the nation who would deny him that right
(Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of
From the foregoing, it may be observed that in the United States, extradition begins and ends Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343, 375-376 [1989]).
with one entity the Department of State which has the power to evaluate the request and the
extradition documents in the beginning, and, in the person of the Secretary of State, the power
to act or not to act on the courts determination of extraditability. In the Philippine setting, it is There can be no dispute over petitioners argument that extradition is a tool of criminal law
the Department of Foreign Affairs which should make the initial evaluation of the request, and enforcement. To be effective, requests for extradition or the surrender of accused or convicted
having satisfied itself on the points earlier mentioned (see pp. 10-12), then forwards the persons must be processed expeditiously. Nevertheless, accelerated or fast-tracked
request to the Department of Justice for the preparation and filing of the petition for proceedings and adherence to fair procedures are, however, not always incompatible. They do
extradition. Sadly, however, the Department of Foreign Affairs, in the instant case, not always clash in discord. Summary does not mean precipitous haste. It does not carry a
perfunctorily turned over the request to the Department of Justice which has taken over the disregard of the basic principles inherent in "ordered liberty."
task of evaluating the request as well as thereafter, if so warranted, preparing, filing, and
prosecuting the petition for extradition. Is there really an urgent need for immediate action at the evaluation stage? At that point, there
is no extraditee yet in the strict sense of the word. Extradition may or may not occur. In
interstate extradition, the governor of the asylum state may not, in the absence of mandatory "subject to limitations as may be provided by law" (Bernas, The 1987 Phil. Constitution A
statute, be compelled to act favorably (37 C.J.S. 387) since after a close evaluation of the Reviewer-Primer, 1997 ed., p. 104) and rely on the premise that ultimately it is an informed
extradition papers, he may hold that federal and statutory requirements, which are significantly and critical public opinion which alone can protect the values of democratic government
jurisdictional, have not been met (31 Am Jur 2d 819). Similarly, under an extradition treaty, (Ibid.).
the executive authority of the requested state has the power to deny the behest from the
requesting state. Accordingly, if after a careful examination of the extradition documents the Petitioner argues that the matters covered by private respondents letter-request dated July 1,
Secretary of Foreign Affairs finds that the request fails to meet the requirements of the law and 1999 do not fall under the guarantee of the foregoing provision since the matters contained in
the treaty, he shall not forward the request to the Department of Justice for the filing of the the documents requested are not of public concern. On the other hand, private respondent
extradition petition since non-compliance with the aforesaid requirements will not vest our argues that the distinction between matters vested with public interest and matters which are of
government with jurisdiction to effect the extradition. purely private interest only becomes material when a third person, who is not directly affected
by the matters requested, invokes the right to information. However, if the person invoking the
In this light, it should be observed that the Department of Justice exerted notable efforts in right is the one directly affected thereby, his right to information becomes absolute.
assuring compliance with the requirements of the law and the treaty since it even informed the
U.S. Government of certain problems in the extradition papers (such as those that are in The concept of matters of public concern escapes exact definition. Strictly speaking, every act
Spanish and without the official English translation, and those that are not properly of a public officer in the conduct of the governmental process is a matter of public concern
authenticated). In fact, petitioner even admits that consultation meetings are still supposed to (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 1996 ed., p. 336). This
take place between the lawyers in his Department and those from the U.S. Justice Department. concept embraces a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to know, either
With the meticulous nature of the evaluation, which cannot just be completed in an because these directly affect their lives or simply because such matters arouse the interest of
abbreviated period of time due to its intricacies, how then can we say that it is a proceeding an ordinary citizen (Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, 150 SCRA 530 [1987]). Hence, the
that urgently necessitates immediate and prompt action where notice and hearing can be real party in interest is the people and any citizen has "standing".
dispensed with?
When the individual himself is involved in official government action because said action has
Worthy of inquiry is the issue of whether or not there is tentativeness of administrative action. a direct bearing on his life, and may either cause him some kind of deprivation or injury, he
Is private respondent precluded from enjoying the right to notice and hearing at a later actually invokes the basic right to be notified under Section 1 of the Bill of Rights and not
time without prejudice to him? Here lies the peculiarity and deviant characteristic of the exactly the right to information on matters of public concern. As to an accused in a criminal
evaluation procedure. On one hand, there is yet no extraditee, but ironically on the other, it proceeding, he invokes Section 14, particularly the right to be informed of the nature and
results in an administrative determination which, if adverse to the person involved, may cause cause of the accusation against him.
his immediate incarceration. The grant of the request shall lead to the filing of the extradition
petition in court. The "accused" (as Section 2[c] of Presidential Decree No. 1069 calls him),
faces the threat of arrest, not only after the extradition petition is filed in court, but even during The right to information is implemented by the right of access to information within the
the evaluation proceeding itself by virtue of the provisional arrest allowed under the treaty and control of the government (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines,
the implementing law. The prejudice to the "accused" is thus blatant and manifest. 1996 ed., p. 337). Such information may be contained in official records, and in documents
and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions.
Plainly, the notice and hearing requirements of administrative due process cannot be dispensed
with and shelved aside. In the case at bar, the papers requested by private respondent pertain to official government
action from the U. S. Government. No official action from our country has yet been taken.
Moreover, the papers have some relation to matters of foreign relations with the U. S.
Apart from the due process clause of the Constitution, private respondent likewise invokes Government. Consequently, if a third party invokes this constitutional provision, stating that
Section 7 of Article III which reads: the extradition papers are matters of public concern since they may result in the extradition of
a Filipino, we are afraid that the balance must be tilted, at such particular time, in favor of the
Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern interests necessary for the proper functioning of the government. During the evaluation
shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and procedure, no official governmental action of our own government has as yet been done;
papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to hence the invocation of the right is premature. Later, and in contrast, records of the extradition
government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be hearing would already fall under matters of public concern, because our government by then
afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. shall have already made an official decision to grant the extradition request. The extradition of
a fellow Filipino would be forthcoming.
The above provision guarantees political rights which are available to citizens of the
Philippines, namely: (1) the right to information on matters of public concern, and (2) the We now pass upon the final issue pertinent to the subject matter of the instant controversy:
corollary right of access to official records and documents. The general right guaranteed by Would private respondents entitlement to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the
said provision is the right to information on matters of public concern. In its implementation, proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties of the Philippine Government under the RP-
the right of access to official records is likewise conferred. These cognate or related rights are
Extradition Treaty? Assuming the answer is in the affirmative, is there really a conflict However, prior thereto, the law is silent as to these rights. Reference to the U.S. extradition
between the treaty and the due process clause in the Constitution? procedures also manifests this silence.

First and foremost, let us categorically say that this is not the proper time to pass upon the Petitioner interprets this silence as unavailability of these rights. Consequently, he describes
constitutionality of the provisions of the RP-US Extradition Treaty nor the Extradition Law the evaluation procedure as an "ex parte technical assessment" of the sufficiency of the
implementing the same. We limit ourselves only to the effect of the grant of the basic rights of extradition request and the supporting documents.
notice and hearing to private respondent on foreign relations.
We disagree.
The rule of pacta sunt servanda, one of the oldest and most fundamental maxims of
international law, requires the parties to a treaty to keep their agreement therein in good faith. In the absence of a law or principle of law, we must apply the rules of fair play. An application
The observance of our country's legal duties under a treaty is also compelled by Section 2, of the basic twin due process rights of notice and hearing will not go against the treaty or the
Article II of the Constitution which provides that "[t]he Philippines renounces war as an implementing law. Neither the Treaty nor the Extradition Law precludes these rights from a
instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as prospective extraditee. Similarly, American jurisprudence and procedures on extradition pose
part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, no proscription. In fact, in interstate extradition proceedings as explained above, the
cooperation and amity with all nations." Under the doctrine of incorporation, rules of prospective extraditee may even request for copies of the extradition documents from the
international law form part of the law of the land and no further legislative action is needed to governor of the asylum state, and if he does, his right to be supplied the same becomes a
make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere (Salonga & Yap, Public International Law, demandable right (35 C.J.S. 410).
1992 ed., p. 12).
Petitioner contends that the United States requested the Philippine Government to prevent
The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals (or local courts) are unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. Hence, the secrecy surrounding the action
confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of of the Department of Justice Panel of Attorneys. The confidentiality argument is, however,
international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state. Efforts overturned by petitioners revelation that everything it refuses to make available at this stage
should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both since it is to be would be obtainable during trial. The Department of Justice states that the U.S. District Court
presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted concerned has authorized the disclosure of certain grand jury information. If the information is
principles of international law in observance of the Incorporation Clause in the above-cited truly confidential, the veil of secrecy cannot be lifted at any stage of the extradition
constitutional provision (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1996 ed., p. 55). In a situation, proceedings. Not even during trial.
however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of
international law and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be
upheld by the municipal courts (Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 [1957]; Gonzales vs. A libertarian approach is thus called for under the premises.
Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230 [1963]; In re: Garcia, 2 SCRA 984 [1961]) for the reason that such
courts are organs of municipal law and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances One will search in vain the RP-US Extradition Treaty, the Extradition Law, as well as
(Salonga & Yap, op. cit., p. 13). The fact that international law has been made part of the law American jurisprudence and procedures on extradition, for any prohibition against the
of the land does not pertain to or imply the primacy of international law over national or conferment of the two basic due process rights of notice and hearing during the evaluation
municipal law in the municipal sphere. The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most stage of the extradition proceedings. We have to consider similar situations in jurisprudence
countries, decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing with, but are not for an application by analogy.
superior to, national legislative enactments. Accordingly, the principle lex posterior derogat
priori takes effect a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. In states Earlier, we stated that there are similarities between the evaluation process and a preliminary
where the constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines, investigation since both procedures may result in the arrest of the respondent or the
both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution prospective extraditee. In the evaluation process, a provisional arrest is even allowed by the
(Ibid.). Treaty and the Extradition Law (Article 9, RP-US Extradition Treaty; Sec. 20, Presidential
Decree No. 1069). Following petitioners theory, because there is no provision of its
In the case at bar, is there really a conflict between international law and municipal or national availability, does this imply that for a period of time, the privilege of the writ of habeas
law? En contrario, these two components of the law of the land are not pitted against each corpus is suspended, despite Section 15, Article III of the Constitution which states that "[t]he
other. There is no occasion to choose which of the two should be upheld. Instead, we see a privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or
void in the provisions of the RP-US Extradition Treaty, as implemented by Presidential rebellion when the public safety requires it"? Petitioners theory would also infer that bail is not
Decree No. 1069, as regards the basic due process rights of a prospective extraditee at the available during the arrest of the prospective extraditee when the extradition petition has
evaluation stage of extradition proceedings. From the procedures earlier abstracted, after the already been filed in court since Presidential Decree No. 1069 does not provide therefor,
filing of the extradition petition and during the judicial determination of the propriety of notwithstanding Section 13, Article III of the Constitution which provides that "[a]ll persons,
extradition, the rights of notice and hearing are clearly granted to the prospective extraditee. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is
strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the In the case at bar, private respondent does not only face a clear and present danger of loss of
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended " Can petitioner validly argue that since property or employment, but of liberty itself, which may eventually lead to his forcible
these contraventions are by virtue of a treaty and hence affecting foreign relations, the banishment to a foreign land. The convergence of petitioners favorable action on the
aforestated guarantees in the Bill of Rights could thus be subservient thereto? extradition request and the deprivation of private respondents liberty is easily comprehensible.

The basic principles of administrative law instruct us that "the essence of due process in We have ruled time and again that this Courts equity jurisdiction, which is aptly described as
administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek "justice outside legality," may be availed of only in the absence of, and never against, statutory
reconsideration of the actions or ruling complained of (Mirano vs. NLRC, 270 SCRA 96 law or judicial pronouncements (Smith Bell & Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 530
[1997]; Padilla vs. NLRC, 273 SCRA 457 [1997]; PLDT vs. NLRC, 276 SCRA 1 [1997]; David-Chan vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 677 [1997]). The constitutional issue in
[1997]; Helpmate, Inc. vs. NLRC, 276 SCRA 315 [1997]; Aquinas School vs. Magnaye, 278 the case at bar does not even call for "justice outside legality," since private respondents due
SCRA 602 [1997]; Jamer vs. NLRC, 278 SCRA 632 [1997]). In essence, procedural due process rights, although not guaranteed by statute or by treaty, are protected by constitutional
process refers to the method or manner by which the law is enforced (Corona vs. United guarantees. We would not be true to the organic law of the land if we choose strict
Harbor Pilots Association of the Phils., 283 SCRA 31 [1997]). This Court will not tolerate the construction over guarantees against the deprivation of liberty. That would not be in keeping
least disregard of constitutional guarantees in the enforcement of a law or treaty. Petitioners with the principles of democracy on which our Constitution is premised.
fears that the Requesting State may have valid objections to the Requested States non-
performance of its commitments under the Extradition Treaty are insubstantial and should not Verily, as one traverses treacherous waters of conflicting and opposing currents of liberty and
be given paramount consideration. government authority, he must ever hold the oar of freedom in the stronger arm, lest an errant
and wayward course be laid.
How then do we implement the RP-US Extradition Treaty? Do we limit ourselves to the four
corners of Presidential Decree No. 1069? WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED
for lack of merit. Petitioner is ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition
Of analogous application are the rulings in Government Service Insurance System vs. Court of request and its supporting papers, and to grant him a reasonable period within which to file his
Appeals (201 SCRA 661 [1991]) and Go vs. National Police Commission (271 SCRA 447 comment with supporting evidence. The incidents in Civil Case No. 99-94684 having been
[1997]) where we ruled that in summary proceedings under Presidential Decree No. 807 rendered moot and academic by this decision, the same is hereby ordered dismissed.
(Providing for the Organization of the Civil Service Commission in Accordance with
Provisions of the Constitution, Prescribing its Powers and Functions and for Other Purposes), SO ORDERED.
and Presidential Decree No. 971 (Providing Legal Assistance for Members of the Integrated
National Police who may be charged for Service-Connected Offenses and Improving the
Disciplinary System in the Integrated National Police, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for
other purposes), as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1707, although summary dismissals
may be effected without the necessity of a formal investigation, the minimum requirements of
due process still operate. As held in GSIS vs. Court of Appeals:

... [I]t is clear to us that what the opening sentence of Section 40 is saying
is that an employee may be removed or dismissed even without formal
investigation, in certain instances. It is equally clear to us that an employee
must be informed of the charges preferred against him, and that the normal
way by which the employee is so informed is by furnishing him with a
copy of the charges against him. This is a basic procedural requirement
that a statute cannot dispense with and still remain consistent with the
constitutional provision on due process. The second minimum requirement
is that the employee charged with some misfeasance or malfeasance must
have a reasonable opportunity to present his side of the matter, that is to
say, his defenses against the charges levelled against him and to present
evidence in support of his defenses. 

(at p. 671)

Said summary dismissal proceedings are also non-litigious in nature, yet we upheld the due
process rights of the respondent.