Secretary of Justice vs. Judge Lantion (G.R. No. 139465)

FACTS:

On January 13, 1977, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1069 “Prescribing the Procedure for the Extradition of Persons Who Have Committed Crimes in a Foreign Country”. The Decree is founded on: the Doctrine of Incorporation under the 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. On November 13, 1994, 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. On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the United States. Mark Jimenez was charged of multiple crimes ranging from tax evasion to wire tapping to conspiracy to defraud the USA. Jimenez was then wanted in the US. The US government, pursuant to the RP-US extradition treaty requested to have Jimenez be extradited there. Jimenez requested for a copy of the complaint against him as well as the extradition request by the USA.The DOJ secretary:

1. refused to provide him copy thereof advising that it is still premature to give him so and that it is not a preliminary investigation hence he is not entitled to receive such copies;

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

Jimenez sued the DOJ Secretary (Franklin Drilon). The lower court ruled in favor of Jimenez. Hence, this petition.

Issue: 

WON Jimenez was deprived of due process.

Held:

Yes. Section 2(a) of PD 1086 defines extradition as “the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government.” Although the inquisitorial power exercised by the DOJ as an administrative agency due to the failure of the DFA to comply lacks any judicial discretion, it primarily sets the wheels for the extradition process which may ultimately result in the deprivation of the liberty of the prospective extraditee. This deprivation can be effected at two stages: 

1. The provisional arrest of the prospective extraditee pending the submission of the request & 

2. The temporary arrest of the prospective extradite during the pendency of the extradition petition in court. 

Clearly, there’s an impending threat to a prospective extraditee’s liberty as early as during the evaluation stage. Because of such consequences, the evaluation process is akin to an administrative agency conducting an investigative proceeding, the consequences of which are essentially criminal since such technical assessment sets off or commences the procedure for & ultimately the deprivation of liberty of a prospective extradite. In essence, therefore, the evaluation process partakes of the nature of a criminal investigation. The Court has ruled in other cases that where the investigation of an administrative proceeding may result in forfeiture of life, liberty, or property, the administrative proceedings are deemed criminal or penal, & such forfeiture partakes the nature of a penalty. In the case at bar, similar to a preliminary investigation, the evaluation stage of the extradition proceedings which may result in the filing of an information against the respondent, can possibly lead to his arrest, & to the deprivation of his liberty. Thus, the extraditee must be accorded due process rights of notice & hearing according to A3 §14(1) & (2), as well as A3 §7—the right of the people to information on matters of public concern & the corollary right to access to official records & documents.

The basic rights of notice & hearing are applicable in criminal, civil & administrative proceedings. Non-observance of these rights will invalidate the proceedings. Individuals are entitled to be notified of any pending case affecting their interests, & upon notice, may claim the right to appear therein & present their side.

In view of the foregoing premises, the petitioner is ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers, and to grant him a reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting evidence.