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 RP-US 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
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Jose B.L. Reyes vs. Ramon Bagatsing
Facts:
Retired Justice J.B.L. Reyes, on behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition, sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally on October 26, 1983 from 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm starting from Luneta, a public park, to the gates of the United States Embassy, hardly two blocks away. There was an assurance in the petition that in the exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and assembly, all the necessary steps would be taken by the rallyist to insure a peaceful march and rally.
The petition was denied by the City Mayor due to the intelligence reports affirming the plans of subversive elements to infiltrate and/or disrupt any assembly or congregation where a large number of people is expected to attend. This denial is anchored on the provision of Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which was adopted in our laws as accepted thru the Ordinance No. 7295 prohibiting the holding or staging of rallies or demonstration within a radius of five hundred (500) feet from any foreign mission or chancery.
Thus, this petition for mandamus with writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to review the decision of the City Mayor of Manila.
Issue:
Whether or not the petition find its merit to exercise its constitutional rights and hold rally despite the express provision of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Held:
The mandatory injunction prayed for is granted.
The constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.” That being the case, if there were a clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage, or disturbance of the peace of the mission, or impairment of its dignity, there would be a justification for the denial of the permit in so far as the terminal point would be the embassy.
There was no showing, however, that the distance between the chancery and the embassy gate is less than 500 feet.
Retired Justice J.B.L. Reyes, on behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition, sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally on October 26, 1983 from 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm starting from Luneta, a public park, to the gates of the United States Embassy, hardly two blocks away. There was an assurance in the petition that in the exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and assembly, all the necessary steps would be taken by the rallyist to insure a peaceful march and rally.
The petition was denied by the City Mayor due to the intelligence reports affirming the plans of subversive elements to infiltrate and/or disrupt any assembly or congregation where a large number of people is expected to attend. This denial is anchored on the provision of Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which was adopted in our laws as accepted thru the Ordinance No. 7295 prohibiting the holding or staging of rallies or demonstration within a radius of five hundred (500) feet from any foreign mission or chancery.
Thus, this petition for mandamus with writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to review the decision of the City Mayor of Manila.
Issue:
Whether or not the petition find its merit to exercise its constitutional rights and hold rally despite the express provision of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Held:
The mandatory injunction prayed for is granted.
The constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.” That being the case, if there were a clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage, or disturbance of the peace of the mission, or impairment of its dignity, there would be a justification for the denial of the permit in so far as the terminal point would be the embassy.
There was no showing, however, that the distance between the chancery and the embassy gate is less than 500 feet.
Shigenori Kuroda vs. Major Gen Rafael Jalandoni
Facts:
Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army, and commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces was charged before a Military Commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines having unlawfully disregarded and failed ‘ to discharge his duties as such commander to control the operations of members of his command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities against non-combatants civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and customs of war during a period covering 1943 and 1944.
On July 29, 1947, President Manuel Roxas issued an Executive Order no. 68 establishing a National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules and regulations governing the trial accused war criminals. This Order was in accordance with the generally accepted principles of international law of the present day, including the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention and international jurisprudence established by the united Nations.
Kuroda seeks to establish the illegality of Executive No. 68 of the President with the principal argument that Executive Order No. 68 is illegal on the ground that it violates not only the provisions of our constitutional law but also our local laws to the fact that the Philippines is not a signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare.
Issue:
Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is valid and constitutional considering the fact that the Philippines is not a signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulation covering Land Warfare.
Held:
Executive Order No. 68 is valid and constitutional.
This Order was in accordance with the generally accepted principles of international law which assert that all those persons, military or civilian , who have been guilty of planning, preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses consequential and incidental thereto, in violation of the laws and customs of war, of humanity and civilization , are held accountable therefore.
Legal Basis:
Art II, Sec3 Philippine Constitution
“The Philippine renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation.”
Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army, and commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces was charged before a Military Commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines having unlawfully disregarded and failed ‘ to discharge his duties as such commander to control the operations of members of his command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities against non-combatants civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and customs of war during a period covering 1943 and 1944.
On July 29, 1947, President Manuel Roxas issued an Executive Order no. 68 establishing a National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules and regulations governing the trial accused war criminals. This Order was in accordance with the generally accepted principles of international law of the present day, including the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention and international jurisprudence established by the united Nations.
Kuroda seeks to establish the illegality of Executive No. 68 of the President with the principal argument that Executive Order No. 68 is illegal on the ground that it violates not only the provisions of our constitutional law but also our local laws to the fact that the Philippines is not a signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare.
Issue:
Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is valid and constitutional considering the fact that the Philippines is not a signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulation covering Land Warfare.
Held:
Executive Order No. 68 is valid and constitutional.
This Order was in accordance with the generally accepted principles of international law which assert that all those persons, military or civilian , who have been guilty of planning, preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses consequential and incidental thereto, in violation of the laws and customs of war, of humanity and civilization , are held accountable therefore.
Legal Basis:
Art II, Sec3 Philippine Constitution
“The Philippine renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation.”
Boris Mejoff vs. Director of Prison
Facts:
Boris Mejoff a Russian alien who was brought to the country as a secret agent during the Japanese occupation was arrested by U.S. Army Counter Intellegence Corps. He was handed to the Government. The people's court ordered his release. But having no passport, he was considered as illegal alien in the country. The Government ordered his deportation to Russia. Having been denied by the Russian vessels for lack of pertinent papers (passport) Boris Mejoff was detained in the Bilibid Prison at Muntinglupa.
The Government represented by the Commissioner of Immigartion reasoned that "it is for the best interests of the country to keep him under detention while arrangements for his departure are being made."
The lower court held in favor of the commissioner stated that Mejoff's temporary detention is a "necessary step in the process of exclusion or explosion of undesirable aliens and that pending arrangements for his deportation, the Government has the right to hold the undesirable alien under confinement for a reasonable length of time."
However, Two years has passed and the Government has not found ways and means of removing the Boris Mejoff out of the country.
Thus, this petition of Habeas Corpus to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not it is proper to detain in an undertermined length of time a stateless person due only to a reason that he is an undesirable alien.
Held:
The court command the Director of Prisons to release Boris Mejoff from costudy upon the terms that Mejoff shall be placed under the surveillance of the immigration authorities or their agents in such form and manner as may deemed adequate to insure that he keep peace and be available when the Government is ready to deport him.
Legal Basis:
Philippine Constitution
Art l, Sec 3. 'the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of
internatinal law as part of the law of nation.'
Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nation of which the Philippine is a member entitled " Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
Art 1. All human beings are born free and equal in degree and rights.
Art 2. ...everyone is entitled to all rights and freedom set forth in this Declaration,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, languange, religion,
political or other opinion, nationality or social origin, property, birth or other
status.
Art 8. Every one has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national
tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
Constitution or by law.
Art 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Boris Mejoff a Russian alien who was brought to the country as a secret agent during the Japanese occupation was arrested by U.S. Army Counter Intellegence Corps. He was handed to the Government. The people's court ordered his release. But having no passport, he was considered as illegal alien in the country. The Government ordered his deportation to Russia. Having been denied by the Russian vessels for lack of pertinent papers (passport) Boris Mejoff was detained in the Bilibid Prison at Muntinglupa.
The Government represented by the Commissioner of Immigartion reasoned that "it is for the best interests of the country to keep him under detention while arrangements for his departure are being made."
The lower court held in favor of the commissioner stated that Mejoff's temporary detention is a "necessary step in the process of exclusion or explosion of undesirable aliens and that pending arrangements for his deportation, the Government has the right to hold the undesirable alien under confinement for a reasonable length of time."
However, Two years has passed and the Government has not found ways and means of removing the Boris Mejoff out of the country.
Thus, this petition of Habeas Corpus to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not it is proper to detain in an undertermined length of time a stateless person due only to a reason that he is an undesirable alien.
Held:
The court command the Director of Prisons to release Boris Mejoff from costudy upon the terms that Mejoff shall be placed under the surveillance of the immigration authorities or their agents in such form and manner as may deemed adequate to insure that he keep peace and be available when the Government is ready to deport him.
Legal Basis:
Philippine Constitution
Art l, Sec 3. 'the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of
internatinal law as part of the law of nation.'
Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nation of which the Philippine is a member entitled " Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
Art 1. All human beings are born free and equal in degree and rights.
Art 2. ...everyone is entitled to all rights and freedom set forth in this Declaration,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, languange, religion,
political or other opinion, nationality or social origin, property, birth or other
status.
Art 8. Every one has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national
tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
Constitution or by law.
Art 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Jeffrey Liang vs. People of the Philippines
Facts:
On January 28 & 31, 1994 Jeffrey Liang alledgely uttered defamatory words agains Joyce V Cabal a Chinese national who was employed and a member of the clerical staff of Asian Development Bank (ADB). The MTC of Mandaluyong dismissed the Criminal Information against Liang, pursuant to an advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs that Liang enjoyed immunity from legal processes. But the Regional Trial Court of Pasig set aside the Order of the MTC.
Jeffrey Liang brought this petition with this Court (The Supreme Court) for review. This Court deny the petition for review. Thus, this motion for reconsideration of a decision of the Supreme Court.
Prior to this incedent, there was an "Agreement Between the Asian Development Bank and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines Regarding the Headquarters of the Asian Development Bank" wherein section 45 of the said agreement states that:
Officers and staff of the bank, including for the purpose of this Article experts and consultants performing missions for the Bank, shall enjoy the following privileges and immunities:
a.) Immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the Bank waives the immunity.
Issue:
Whether or not the statements allegedly uttered by Jeffrey Liang were made while he is in the performance of his official functions, so that he can invoke Section 45 of the Agreement.
Held:
(t)he immunity granted to officers and staff of the ADB is not absolute; it is limited to acts performed in an official capacity. Furthermore, we held that the immunity cannot cover the commission of a crime such as slander or oral defamation in the name of official duty.
the Motions for Reconsideration filed by Jeffrey Liang are DENIED with FINALITY.
On January 28 & 31, 1994 Jeffrey Liang alledgely uttered defamatory words agains Joyce V Cabal a Chinese national who was employed and a member of the clerical staff of Asian Development Bank (ADB). The MTC of Mandaluyong dismissed the Criminal Information against Liang, pursuant to an advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs that Liang enjoyed immunity from legal processes. But the Regional Trial Court of Pasig set aside the Order of the MTC.
Jeffrey Liang brought this petition with this Court (The Supreme Court) for review. This Court deny the petition for review. Thus, this motion for reconsideration of a decision of the Supreme Court.
Prior to this incedent, there was an "Agreement Between the Asian Development Bank and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines Regarding the Headquarters of the Asian Development Bank" wherein section 45 of the said agreement states that:
Officers and staff of the bank, including for the purpose of this Article experts and consultants performing missions for the Bank, shall enjoy the following privileges and immunities:
a.) Immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the Bank waives the immunity.
Issue:
Whether or not the statements allegedly uttered by Jeffrey Liang were made while he is in the performance of his official functions, so that he can invoke Section 45 of the Agreement.
Held:
(t)he immunity granted to officers and staff of the ADB is not absolute; it is limited to acts performed in an official capacity. Furthermore, we held that the immunity cannot cover the commission of a crime such as slander or oral defamation in the name of official duty.
the Motions for Reconsideration filed by Jeffrey Liang are DENIED with FINALITY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)