8/12/2019 Sec of Justice v Lantion

1/1

In the landmark case of Secretary of Justice v Lantion (G.R. No. 139465, January 18,

2000, MR October 200), the court ruled on the issue of whether the twin rights of notice and

hearing are available in the evaluation stage of extradition proceedings. Involved in this case are

the RP-US Extradition Treaty, PD 1069 (Philippine Extradition Law), and the due process rights

of notice and hearing under the Constitution.

Initially, the court ruled in the affirmative. On the premise that the evaluation stage is an

investigative or inquisitorial process that may result in the deprivation of the liberty of the

potential extraditee, the Court ruled that the due process rights to notice and hearing were

available to the respondent. Subsequently, however, the court reversed itself and ruled that said

rights may only be invoked when the petition is filed in court and not when the evaluation is

ongoing. In the said resolution, the court enunciated the doctrine that an extradition proceeding

is sui generis. It is not a criminal proceeding which calls for the operation of all the

constitutional rights of an individual.

A significant portion of the case, particularly in the resolution, is the part whereby the

Court, in interpreting the RP-US Extradition Treaty, resorted to tools other than those

conventionally used in the construction of treaties. In addition to the pertinent provisions of theVienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the court considered that [a]n equally compelling

factor to consider is the understanding of the parties themselves to the RP-US Extradition

Treaty as well as the general interpretation of the issue in question by other countries

with similar treaties with the Philippines (emphasis by the Supreme Court). Citing US

jurisprudence, it goes further to say that while courts have the power to interpret treaties, the

meaning given them by the departments of government particularly charged with their

negotiation and enforcement is accorded great weight.

Lastly, as obiter, the court notes that [O]ther countries with similar extraditiontreaties with the Philippines have expressed the same interpretation adopted

by the Philippine and US governments.

Specifically, the Court took notice ofcommunications sent by Canadian and Hongkong authorities, who expressed inunequivocal language that it is not an international practice to afford a potentialextraditee with a copy of the extradition papers during the evaluation stage of theextradition process.

Noticeable is the fact that in addition to examining the intent of the Philippinesand the US, the Court considered the interpretation of similar treaties executed bythe Philippines with other states. This unique approach employed by the Court mayprovide for a better understanding of the intent of States. However, this must bedone with caution. In the absence of proof that treaties executed by a State with

different other states are exactly the same, it may not be prudent to consider thatone interpretation applies to all.