Case Digest (G.R. No. 139465)
Facts:
In Secretary of Justice v. Hon. Ralph C. Lantion and Mark B. Jimenez (G.R. No. 139465, decided November 12, 2001 under the 1987 Constitution), the Secretary of Justice sought a writ of prohibition against Judge Lantion of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 25, to prevent enforcement of an order directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to furnish copies of an American extradition request and its supporting papers to private respondent Mark B. Jimenez and to afford him a period to comment. On August 9, 1999, the RTC judge granted Jimenez’s petition to secure advance notice and hearing during the DOJ’s evaluation of the request. This Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on August 17, 1999, enjoining further proceedings in Civil Case No. 99-94684. On January 18, 2000, by a vote of 9–6, the Court denied the prohibition petition, directed the DOJ to provide Jimenez copies of all extradition documents and grant him reasonable time to comment, and dissolved...Case Digest (G.R. No. 139465)
Facts:
- Background and Prior Decision
- On January 18, 2000, the Supreme Court in a 9–6 vote dismissed the petition of the Secretary of Justice and ordered him to furnish private respondent Mark B. Jimenez copies of the U.S. extradition request with supporting papers and to grant a reasonable period to comment with supporting evidence.
- The petition challenged the absence of notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of an extradition request, the scope of executive discretion under Presidential Decree No. 1069 (P.D. 1069) and the RP–US Extradition Treaty, separation of powers, and the non-availability of bail.
- Post-Decision Proceedings
- On February 3, 2000, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, contending that the evaluation process antecedent to filing an extradition petition differs from a preliminary investigation and entails no notice or hearing requirement.
- On March 28, 2000, private respondent filed a 58-page Comment opposing the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed on April 5, 2000 an Urgent Motion to Allow Continuation and Maintenance of Action and Filing of Reply, and on June 7, 2000 a Manifestation with Canadian and Hong Kong note verbales. Private respondent filed a Motion for Leave to File Rejoinder (August 15, 2000) and a Motion to Expunge (August 18, 2000).
- The Court denied all pending motions except the motion to continue, and resolved the motion for reconsideration.
- Promulgation of the Reconsideration Resolution
- On October 17, 2000, the Supreme Court en banc promulgated its Resolution, granting the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and reversing the January 18, 2000 decision. Justice Puno penned the majority opinion with Chief Justice Davide, Jr., Justices Mendoza, Purisima, Pardo, Gonzaga-Reyes, and De Leon, Jr., concurring.
Issues:
- Main Issue
- Whether private respondent is entitled to the due process rights of notice and hearing during the executive evaluation stage of the extradition process under P.D. 1069 and the RP–US Extradition Treaty.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)