may even request for copies of the extradition documents from the

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. governor of the asylum state, and if he does, his right to be supplied the
LANTION same becomes a demandable right.”
The human rights of person, whether citizen or alien, and the
FACTS: rights of the accused guaranteed in our Constitution should take
Secretary Of Justice Franklin Drilon, representing the Government of the precedence over treaty rights claimed by a contracting state. The duties
Republic of the Philippines, signed in Manila the “extradition Treaty of the government to the individual deserve preferential consideration
Between the Government of the Philippines and the Government of the when they collide with its treaty obligations to the government of another
U.S.A. The Philippine Senate ratified the said Treaty. state.
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Petitioner (Secretary of Justice) was thereby ordered to furnish
Department of Foreign Affairs U.S Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a Mark Jimenez copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers,
request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the and to grant him (Mark Jimenez) a reasonable period within which to file
United States. his comment with supporting evidence.
On the same day the Secretary of Justice designated and authorized a
panel of attorneys to take charge of and to handle the case. Pending
evaluation of the aforestated extradition documents, Mark Jimenez
through counsel, wrote a letter to Justice Secretary requesting: (1) the
right to be furnished the request and the supporting papers; (2) the right
to be heard which consists in having a reasonable period of time to
oppose the request, and to present evidence in support of the opposition;
and (3) that the evaluation proceedings be held in abeyance pending the
filing of private respondent's opposition to the request, but the petitioner
denied the request stating that the Philippine Government must present
the interests of the United States in any proceedings arising out of a
request for extradition.

ISSUE: Is there a need to uphold a citizen’s due process rights in an

extradition proceeding covered by a treaty?

RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court found that the Extradition treaty is
silent as to the due process rights of an extraditee during the evaluation
proceedings of the extradition request. In the words of the Supreme
Court: “In the absence of a law or principle of law, we must apply the
rules of fair play. An application of the basic twin due process rights of
notice and hearing will not go against the treaty or the implementing law.
Neither the Treaty nor the Extradition Law precludes these rights from a
prospective extraditee. Similarly, American jurisprudence and
procedures on extradition pose no proscription. In fact, in interstate
extradition proceedings as explained above, the prospective extraditee