Access over 20 million homework & study documents
search

Content type

User Generated

Rating

Showing Page:
1/73
Secretary of Justice vs hon. Ralph C Lantian
Facts:
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign
Affairs U.S. Note No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent
Mark Jimenez. Secretary of Justice then ordered a technical evaluation and assessment of
the extradition request.
Mark Jimenez through counsel wrote a letter addressed to herein petitioner requesting
copies of official extradition request from the US Government. He requested ample time to
comment and for the matter to be held in abeyance in the meantime.
Secretary of Justice denied the said request specifically invoking our country’s responsibility
to the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties that “every treaty in force is binding upon
parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.” Extradition is a toll of criminal law
enforcement and to be effective must be processed expeditiously.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent Judge Lantion acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the temporary
restraining order to herein petitioner in performing his legal duties as Secretary of Justice.
Held:
The Extradition Law provides Rules of Court shall apply, thus extradite has the basic right of
notice and hearing. The RP-US Extradition Treaty under the Incorporation Clause in case of
conflict is not superior over a national law.
International law is given equal standing but not superior to national legislative enactment.
The principle lex posterior degorat oriori takes effect a treaty may repeal a statute and a

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/73
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.
Thus, petitioner is ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition request
and its supporting papers and to grant him (Jimenez) a reasonable period within which to file
his comment and supporting evidence.
There was only a void on some provisions of the RP-US Extradition Treaty as regards to the
basic due process right of a prospective extradite at the evaluation stage of the extradition
proceeding.
RTC’s decision is rendered moot and academic and herein petition is DISMISSED.
In RE: Arturo Garcia
Facts:
Arturo Garcia applied for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines without
submitting to the required bar examinations. In his verified petition, he asserts that he is a
Filipino citizen born in Bacolod City, of Filipino parentage.
He had taken and finished the course of “Bachillerato Superior” in Spain and was approved,
selected and qualified by the “Insitututo de Cervantes” for admission to the Central
University of Madrid where he studied and finished the law course, graduating there as
“Licenciado en derecho”.
Thereafter he was allowed to practice the law profession in Spain. He claims that under the
provisions of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Profession between the
Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State, he is entitled to the practice the law
profession in the Philippines without submitting to the required bar examinations.

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/73

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Secretary of Justice vs hon. Ralph C Lantian Facts:  On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S. Note No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez. Secretary of Justice then ordered a technical evaluation and assessment of the extradition request. Mark Jimenez through counsel wrote a letter addressed to herein petitioner requesting copies of official extradition request from the US Government. He requested ample time to comment and for the matter to be held in abeyance in the meantime. Secretary of Justice denied the said request specifically invoking our country’s responsibility to the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties that “every treaty in force is binding upon parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.” Extradition is a toll of criminal law enforcement and to be effective must be processed expeditiously. Issue:  Whether or not respondent Judge Lantion acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the temporary restraining order to herein petitioner in performing his legal duties as Secretary of Justice. Held:  The Extradition Law provides Rules of Court shall apply, thus extradite has the basic right of notice and hearing. The RP-US Extradition Treaty under the Incorporation Clause in case of conflict is not superior over a national law. International law i ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Great! Studypool always delivers quality work.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4