Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
January 18, 2000] On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from Government, as well as all documents and papers
the Department of Foreign Affairs U. S. Note Verbale No. submitted therewith; and that he be given ample time to
0522 containing a request for the extradition of private comment on the request after he shall have received
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, petitioner, vs. HON. RALPH C.
respondent Mark Jimenez to the United States. Attached to copies of the requested papers. Private respondent also
LANTION, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of
the Note Verbale were the Grand Jury Indictment, the requested that the proceedings on the matter be held in
Manila, Branch 25, and MARK B.
warrant of arrest issued by the U.S. District Court, abeyance in the meantime.
JIMENEZ, respondents. Esmso
Southern District of Florida, and other supporting
documents for said extradition. Based on the papers
Later, private respondent requested that preliminarily, he
DECISION submitted, private respondent appears to be charged in the
be given at least a copy of, or access to, the request of the
United States with violation of the following provisions of
United States Government, and after receiving a copy of
the United States Code (USC):
MELO, J.: the Diplomatic Note, a period of time to amplify on his
request.
A)......18 USC 371 (Conspiracy to
The individual citizen is but a speck of particle or molecule
commit offense or to defraud the
vis--vis the vast and overwhelming powers of government. In response to private respondents July 1, 1999 letter,
United States; two [2] counts;
His only guarantee against oppression and tyranny are his petitioner, in a reply-letter dated July 13, 1999 (but
Maximum Penalty 5 years on each
fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights which shield received by private respondent only on August 4, 1999),
count);
him in times of need. The Court is now called to decide denied the foregoing requests for the following reasons:
whether to uphold a citizens basic due process rights, or
the governments ironclad duties under a treaty. The bugle B)......26 USC 7201 (Attempt to evade
1. We find it premature to furnish you
sounds and this Court must once again act as the faithful or defeat tax; four [4] counts;
with copies of the extradition request
guardian of the fundamental writ. Maximum Penalty 5 years on each
and supporting documents from the
count);
United States Government, pending
The petition at our doorstep is cast against the following evaluation by this Department of the
factual backdrop: C)......18 USC 1343 (Fraud by wire, sufficiency of the extradition
radio, or television; two [2] counts; documents submitted in accordance
Maximum Penalty 5 years on each with the provisions of the extradition
On January 13, 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos
count); treaty and our extradition law. Article
issued Presidential Decree No. 1069 "Prescribing the
7 of the Extradition Treaty between the
Procedure for the Extradition of Persons Who Have
Philippines and the United States
Committed Crimes in a Foreign Country". The Decree is D)......18 USC 1001 (False statement or
enumerates the documentary
founded on: the doctrine of incorporation under the entries; six [6] counts; Maximum
requirements and establishes the
Constitution; the mutual concern for the suppression of Penalty 5 years on each count);
procedures under which the documents
crime both in the state where it was committed and the
submitted shall be received and
state where the criminal may have escaped; the extradition
E)......2 USC 441f (Election admitted as evidence. Evidentiary
treaty with the Republic of Indonesia and the intention of
contributions in name of another; requirements under our domestic law
the Philippines to enter into similar treaties with other
thirty-three [33] counts; Maximum are also set forth in Section 4 of P.D.
interested countries; and the need for rules to guide the
Penalty less than one year). No. 1069.
executive department and the courts in the proper
implementation of said treaties.
(p. 14, Rollo.) Evaluation by this Department of the
aforementioned documents is not a
On November 13, 1994, then Secretary of Justice Franklin
preliminary investigation nor akin to
M. Drilon, representing the Government of the Republic of On the same day, petitioner issued Department Order No.
preliminary investigation of criminal
the Philippines, signed in Manila the "Extradition Treaty 249 designating and authorizing a panel of attorneys to
cases. We merely determine whether
Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines take charge of and to handle the case pursuant to Section
the procedures and requirements under
and the Government of the United States of America" 5(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1069. Accordingly, the
the relevant law and treaty have been
(hereinafter referred to as the RP-US Extradition Treaty). panel began with the "technical evaluation and assessment"
complied with by the Requesting
The Senate, by way of Resolution No. 11, expressed its of the extradition request and the documents in support
Government. The constitutionally
concurrence in the ratification of said treaty. It also thereof. The panel found that the "official English
guaranteed rights of the accused in all
expressed its concurrence in the Diplomatic Notes translation of some documents in Spanish were not
criminal prosecutions are therefore not
correcting Paragraph (5)(a), Article 7 thereof (on the attached to the request and that there are some other
available.
admissibility of the documents accompanying an matters that needed to be addressed" (p. 15, Rollo). Calrky
extradition request upon certification by the principal
diplomatic or consular officer of the requested state It is only after the filing of the petition
Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition
resident in the Requesting State). Kycalr for extradition when the person sought
documents, private respondent, through counsel, wrote a
to be extradited will be furnished by
letter dated July 1, 1999 addressed to petitioner requesting
the court with copies of the petition,
copies of the official extradition request from the U. S.
request and extradition documents and Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and counsels for the parties herein, is set
this Department will not pose any the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, on August 17, 1999 at 9:00 oclock in
objection to a request for ample time for mandamus (to compel herein petitioner to furnish the morning. The respondents are,
to evaluate said documents. Mesm private respondent the extradition documents, to give him likewise, ordered to file their written
access thereto, and to afford him an opportunity to comment and/or opposition to the
comment on, or oppose, the extradition request, and issuance of a Preliminary Injunction on
2. The formal request for extradition of
thereafter to evaluate the request impartially, fairly and or before said date.
the United States contains grand jury
objectively); certiorari (to set aside herein petitioners
information and documents obtained
letter dated July 13, 1999); and prohibition (to restrain
through grand jury process covered by SO ORDERED.
petitioner from considering the extradition request and
strict secrecy rules under United States
from filing an extradition petition in court; and to enjoin
law. The United States had to secure
the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the NBI (pp. 110-111, Rollo.)
orders from the concerned District
from performing any act directed to the extradition of
Courts authorizing the United States to
private respondent to the United States), with an
disclose certain grand jury information Forthwith, petitioner initiated the instant proceedings,
application for the issuance of a temporary restraining
to Philippine government and law arguing that:
order and a writ of preliminary injunction (pp. 104-105,
enforcement personnel for the purpose
Rollo). Scslx
of extradition of Mr. Jimenez. Any
PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITHOUT
further disclosure of the said
OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR
information is not authorized by the The aforementioned petition was docketed as Civil Case
WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
United States District Courts. In this No. 99-94684 and thereafter raffled to Branch 25 of said
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
particular extradition request the regional trial court stationed in Manila which is presided
JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE
United States Government requested over by the Honorable Ralph C. Lantion.
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
the Philippine Government to prevent
BECAUSE: Slxs c
unauthorized disclosure of the subject
After due notice to the parties, the case was heard on
information. This Departments denial
August 9, 1999. Petitioner, who appeared in his own
of your request is consistent with I.
behalf, moved that he be given ample time to file a
Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition
memorandum, but the same was denied.
Treaty which provides that the
BY ORDERING HEREIN PETITIONER TO
Philippine Government must represent
REFRAIN FROM COMMITTING THE ACTS
the interests of the United States in On August 10, 1999, respondent judge issued an order
COMPLAINED OF, I. E., TO DESIST FROM
any proceedings arising out of a request dated the previous day, disposing:
REFUSING PRIVATE RESPONDENT
for extradition. The Department of
ACCESS TO THE OFFICIAL EXTRADITION
Justice under P.D. No. 1069 is the
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby Orders REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS AND FROM
counsel of the foreign governments in
the respondents, namely: the Secretary DENYING PRIVATE RESPONDENT AN
all extradition requests.
of Justice, the Secretary of Foreign OPPORTUNITY TO FILE A COMMENT ON,
Affairs and the Director of the National OR OPPOSITION TO, THE REQUEST, THE
3. This Department is not in a position Bureau of Investigation, their agents MAIN PRAYER FOR A WRIT OF
to hold in abeyance proceedings in and/or representatives to maintain the MANDAMUS IN THE PETITION FOR
connection with an extradition request. status quo by refraining from MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on committing the acts complained of; PROHIBITION WAS, IN EFFECT,
the Law of Treaties, to which we are a from conducting further proceedings in GRANTED SO AS TO CONSTITUTE AN
party provides that "[E]very treaty in connection with the request of the ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS OF THE
force is binding upon the parties to it United States Government for the MANDAMUS ISSUES;
and must be performed by them in extradition of the petitioner; from
good faith". Extradition is a tool of filing the corresponding Petition with a
II.
criminal law enforcement and to be Regional Trial court; and from
effective, requests for extradition or performing any act directed to the
surrender of accused or convicted extradition of the petitioner to the PETITIONER WAS UNQUALIFIEDLY
persons must be processed United States, for a period of twenty PREVENTED FROM PERFORMING LEGAL
expeditiously. (20) days from service on respondents DUTIES UNDER THE EXTRADITION
of this Order, pursuant to Section 5, TREATY AND THE PHILIPPINE
Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Court. EXTRADITION LAW;
(pp. 77-78, Rollo.)