Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lantion
January 18, 2000
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 receive 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 Hon. Lantion
ordered:
The Secretary of Justice et al ordered to
maintain the status quo by refraining from
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.
International School vs. Quisumbing
June 1, 2000
Facts:
Private respondent International School,
Inc. (School), pursuant to PD 732, is a
domestic educational institution
established primarily for dependents of
foreign diplomatic personnel and other
temporary residents. The decree
authorizes the School to employ its own
teaching and management personnel
selected by it either locally or abroad,
from Philippine or other nationalities,
such personnel being exempt from
otherwise applicable laws and
regulations attending their employment,
except laws that have been or will be
enacted for the protection of employees.
School hires both foreign and local
teachers as members of its faculty,
classifying the same into two: (1)
foreign-hires and (2) local-hires.
The School grants foreign-hires certain
benefits not accorded local-hires.
Issue:
WON there is a violation of the
constitutional right against unreasonable
search and seizure.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that under
Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
provides:
Arrest without warrant; when lawful a
peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
a) When, in the presence, the
person to be arrested has
committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
b) When an offense has in fact just
been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
c) When the person to be arrested is
a prisoner who has escaped from
a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final