Secretary of Justice vs. Hon. Ralph C.

Lantion
Facts: On January 13, 1977 P.D. 1069 was issued prescribing the Procedure of the Extradition of Persons who have committed Crimes in a Foreign Country. The Decree is founded on The Doctrine of Incorporation under the Constitution Art II, Sec 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. On November 13, 1994 Justice Secretary Franklin Drilon signed in Manila the Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Philippines and the Government of U.S.A. It was ratified by the Senate. On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs of U. S. a request for the extradition of Mark Jimenez to the United States who are charged in the U.S. with the violation of the following: conspiracy, attempt to evade tax, false statement or entry, election contributions in the name of another. Pending evaluation of the extradition documents, Mark Jimenez, through a counsel, on July 1, 1999, requested copies of the official extradition request from the U.S. Government as well as all documents and papers submitted therewith, and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall received copies of the requested papers. Mark Jimenez insisted the constitutional rights particularly the following: 1. the right to be furnished the request and 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 is support of the opposition; The Depart of Justice Denied the request. On Aug 6, 1999 Mark Jimenez filed with the R.T.C against the Secretary of Justice, Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the NBI for Mandamus (to compel them to furnish to Mark Jimenez the extradition documents.), Certiorari (to set aside the Sec. of Justice letter dated July 13, 1999), Prohibition (to restrain the Sec of Justice from considering the extradition request). On August 10, 1999 the Judge ordered: The Secretary of Justice et al ordered to maintain the status quo by refraining from committing the acts complained of. Thus this petition, arguing that Honorable Lantion (Presiding Judge of RTC Manila)acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or abuse discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the TRO: 1. by ordering the Secretary of Justice to refrain from committing the acts complained of (i.e to desist from refusing Mark Jimenez access to the official extradition request and documents.)

2. Secretary of Justice was unqualifiedly prevented from performing legal duties under the extradition treaty and the Philippine Extradition Law. Issue: Would Mark Jimenez entitlement to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties of the Philippine Government under the RPUS Extradition Treaty? Held: Petition Dismissed. Petitioner (Secretary of Justice) is ordered to furnish Mark Jimenez copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers, and to grant him (Mark Jimenez) a reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting evidence. Under the Doctrine of Incorporation, rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no further legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere. The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state. Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both since it is to be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted principles of international law in observance of the incorporation clause in the above cited constitutional provision. In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of international law and a municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the municipal courts, for the reason that such courts are organs of municipal law and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances. The fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not pertain to or imply the primacy of international law over national or municipal law in the municipal sphere. The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing with, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments. Accordingly, the principle lex posterior derogate priori takes effect a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. In states where the Constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution

The Holy See vs. Rosario, Jr. G.R. No. 101949 01 December 1994 Petitioner: Holy See Respondent: Hon. Eriberto U. Rosario, JR., as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 61 and STARBRIGHT SALES ENTERPRISES, INC.

Facts: The Holy See filed a petition for certiorari over the Civil Case No. 90-183 and to invoke its immunity to waiver the complaint for the civil case. The petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land. The said lot was contiguous with two other lots. The land was donated by the Archdiocese of Manila to the Papal Nuncio(which represents the Holy See who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City in Rome, Italy) for its residence. The lots were sold to Ramon Licup, including the lot for the Papal Nuncio, since the squatters would not evacuate the lands and the land isnt suitable anymore for the construction of the Papal Nuncios residence. Ramon Licup gave his rights over the lots to Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc. Starbright filed a complaint for the annulment of the sale of the 3 parcels of land, and specific performance and damages against the petitioner and 3 other defendants, under the Civil Case No. 90-183. In June 20, 1991, the trial court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss after finding that petitioner shed off [its] foreign immunity by entering into business contract in question. The petitioners action was declared jure gestionis.

Issue: 1) Whether or not the Holy See entered into commercial transaction. 2) Whether the Holy See can invoke the doctrine of immunity.

Held: The Holy See wanted to dispose the parcel of land donated by the Archdiocese of Manila because the squatters refused to leave the land and the land cant be used for its purpose. The Holy Sees act was in pursuit for its sovereign activity and was not undertaken for gain or profit, therefore, the act was jure imperii. In Article 31 (a) of the 1961 Vienna convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving state which the envoy holds in behalf of the

sending state for the purposes of the mission. The Holy See can invoke the doctrine of immunity over the Civil Case No. 90-183. The petition for certiorari was GRANTED, and the complaint in Civil Case No. 90-183 against the petitioner was DISMISSED.

Principles: Article 31(a) of 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Articles 20-22 of 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Lateran Treaty