SECRETARY OF JUSTICE VS LANTION AND MARK JIMENEZ

FACTS:
The DOJ received a request from the DFA for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the U.S.
Attached thereto were the Grand Jury Indictment, warrant of arrest (US-Florida), and other supporting documents for
said extradition. Charges include: Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the US, Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Fraud by wire, radio, or television, False statement or entries, Election contribution in name of another.

The DOJ, designated and authorized a panel of attorneys to take charge of and to handle the extradition request.
Pending evaluation, Jimenez, requested copies of all the documents included in the extradition request and for him to
be given ample time to assess it. However, the Secretary of Justice, denied request on the following grounds:

1. He found it premature to secure him copies prior to the completion of the evaluation. At that point in time,
the DOJ is in the process of evaluating whether the procedures and requirements under the relevant law (PD
1069 Philippine Extradition Law) and treaty (RP-US Extradition Treaty) have been complied with by the
Requesting Government. Evaluation by the DOJ of the documents is not a preliminary investigation like in
criminal cases making the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the accused in criminal prosecution
inapplicable.
2. The U.S. requested for the prevention of unauthorized disclosure of the information in the documents.
3. The department is not in position to hold in abeyance proceedings in connection with an extradition request,
as Philippines is bound to Vienna Convention on law of treaties such that every treaty in force is binding
upon the parties.

Mark Jimenez then filed a petition for mandamus, certiorari and prohibition against the Secretary of Justice in RTC
which ruled in favor of Jimenez. Secretary of Justice was made to issue a copy of the requested papers, as well as
conducting further proceedings. Thus, this petition.

ISSUE:
WON respondent’s right to notice and hearing should take precedence over the RP-US Extradition Treaty.

HELD:
Yes.
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. In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made
between a rule of international law and 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 derogat 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 human rights of person, Filipino or foreigner, and the rights of the accused guaranteed in our Constitution
should take precedence over treaty rights claimed by a contracting state. The duties of the government to the individual
deserve preferential consideration when they collide with its treaty obligations to the government of another state.