Case Digest (G.R. No. 139789)
Facts:
On January 13, 1977, President Ferdinand E. Marcos promulgated Presidential Decree No. 1069, prescribing procedures for the extradition of fugitives. On November 13, 1994, the Secretary of Justice signed the RP-US Extradition Treaty, later concurred in by the Senate through Resolution No. 11. On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice (DOJ) received U.S. Note Verbale No. 0522 requesting the extradition of Philippine resident Mark B. Jimenez, attaching a Grand Jury Indictment, U.S. District Court arrest warrant, and supporting evidence charging him with multiple counts under various U.S. statutes. Pursuant to PD 1069 § 5, DOJ Department Order No. 249 constituted a panel to evaluate the request and documents, finding among other deficiencies the absence of certain official English translations. By letter dated July 1, 1999, private respondent, through counsel, formally asked DOJ to furnish him copies of the extradition request and its accompaniments and to grant him time to commeCase Digest (G.R. No. 139789)
Facts:
- Legal and Treaty Framework
- On January 13, 1977, Presidential Decree No. 1069 (PD 1069) was issued, implementing extradition treaties under the constitutional doctrine of incorporation and prescribing procedures for mutual crime suppression.
- On November 13, 1994, the Philippines and the United States signed the RP-US Extradition Treaty; the Senate (Resolution No. 11) concurred in ratification and in correcting Article 7(5)(a) on document certification.
- U.S. Request to Extradite Mark Jimenez
- On June 18, 1999, the DOJ received Note Verbale No. 0522 from the DFA, enclosing a U.S. grand jury indictment, arrest warrant (S.D. Florida), and supporting documents charging Jimenez with conspiracy (18 USC 371), tax evasion (26 USC 7201), wire fraud (18 USC 1343), false statements (18 USC 1001), and illegal election contributions (2 USC 441f).
- DOJ Dept. Order No. 249 constituted a panel to “technically evaluate” the request, finding missing English translations and other formal deficiencies.
- Private Respondent’s Requests and RTC Proceedings
- July 1, 1999: Jimenez requested copies of the U.S. extradition request and supporting papers and time to comment; DOJ denied on July 13, 1999, citing premature disclosure, treaty duties, grand‐jury secrecy, and need for expeditious processing.
- August 6, 1999: Jimenez filed in RTC Branch 25 (Civil Case No. 99-94684) a petition for mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition with application for TRO and preliminary injunction to compel DOJ, DFA, and NBI to furnish the papers and halt extradition actions.
- August 10, 1999: RTC issued a 20-day status-quo TRO enjoining further extradition proceedings; hearing set for August 17.
- Supreme Court Intervention
- August 17, 1999: The Supreme Court issued a TRO suspending enforcement of the RTC order.
- August 31, 1999: Oral arguments were heard; parties filed memoranda. The crux: Do due process rights of notice and hearing apply during the executive’s evaluation stage of an extradition request?
Issues:
- Due Process at Evaluation Stage
- Are notice, access to documents, and hearing required by the Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 1) for a person whose extradition is sought, even before a court petition is filed?
- Treaty vs. Constitutional Duties
- Would extending those due process rights conflict with the Philippines’ obligations under the RP-US Extradition Treaty and PD 1069?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)