Jurisprudence for Public International Law

7/24/2019 Jurisprudence for Public International Law

1/146

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-2855 July 30, 1949

BORIS MEJO,petitioner,vs.!IRECTOR O PRISONS,respondent.

First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Lucas Lacson for respondent.

BENG"ON,J.#

The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of Russian descent who was brouht to this countr! fro"#hanhai as a secret operative b! the $apanese forces durin the latter%s rei"e in these &slands.'pon liberation he was arrested aa a $apanese sp!, b! '. #. Ar"! Counter &ntellience Corps.(ater he was handed to the Co""onwealth )overn"ent for disposition in accordance withCo""onwealth Act No. *+. Thereafter the People%s Court ordered his release. But thedeportation board ta-in his case up, found that havin no travel docu"ents Mejoff was illeall!in this countr!, and conseuentl! refferd the "atter to the i""iration authorities. After thecorrespondin investiation, the Board o/ Co""issioners of &""iration on April 0, 123+,declared that Mejoff had entered the Philippines illeall! in 1233, withoutinspection andad"ission b! the i""iration officials at a desinated port of entr! and, therefore, it ordered that

he be deported on the first available transportation to Russia. The petitioner was then undercustod!, he havin been arrested on March 1+, 123+. &n Ma!, 123+, he was transferred to theCebu Provincial $ail toether with three other Russians to await the arrival of so"e Russianvessels. &n $ul! and in Auust of that !ear two boats of Russian nationalit! called at the CebuPort. But their "asters refused to ta-e petitioner and his co"panions allein lac- of authorit! todo so. &n 4ctober, 123+, after repeated failures to ship this deportee abroad, the authoritiesre"oved hi" to Bilibid Prison at Muntinlupa where he has been confined up to the presentti"e, inas"uch as the Co""issioner of &""iration believes it is for the best interest of thecountr! to -eep hi" under detention while arrane"ents for his deportation are bein "ade.

&t is contended on behalf of petitioner that havin been brouht to the Philippines legallyb! the

$apanese forces, he "a! not now be deported. &t is enouh to sa! that the aru"ent would den!to this )overn"ent the power and the authorit! to eject fro" the &slands an! and all of that"e"bers of the Nipponese Ar"! of occupation who "a! still be found hidin in re"ote places.5hich is absurd. Petitioner li-ewise contends that he "a! not be deported because the statutor!period to do that under the laws has lon e6pired. The proposition has no basis. 'nder section 78of the Philippine &""iration Act of 1239 an! alien who enters this countr! :without inspectionand ad"ission b! the i""iration authorities at a desinated point of entr!: is subject to


2/146

deportation within five !ears. &n a recent decision of a si"ilar litiation ;Borovs-! vs.Co""issioner of &""iration< we denied the reuest for habeas corpus, sa!in=

:&t "ust be ad"itted that te"porar! detention is a necessar! step in the process of e6clusion ore6pulsion of undesirable aliens and that pendin arrane"ents for his deportation, the

)overn"ent has the riht to hold the undesirable alien under confine"ent for a reasonable lenhtof ti"e. >owever, under established precedents, too lon a detention "a! justif! the issuance ofa writ of habeas corpus.1

:The "eanin of :reasonable ti"e: depends upon the circu"stances, speciall! the difficulties ofobtainin a passport, the availabilit! of transfortation, the diplo"atic arrane"ents concernedand the efforts displa!ed to send the deportee awa!.Considerin that this )overn"ent desires toe6pel the alien, and does not relish -eepin hi" at the people%s e6pense, we "ust presu"e it is"a-in efforts to carr! out the decree of e6clusion b! the hihest officer of the land. 4n top ofthis presu"ption assurances were "ade durin the oral aru"ent that the )overn"ent is reall!tr!in to e6pedite the e6pulsion of this petitioner. 4n the other hand, the record fails to show

how lon he has been under confine"ent since the last ti"e he was apprehended. Neither doeshe indicate nelected opportunities to send hi" abroad. And unless it is shown that the deporteeis bein indefinitel! i"prisoned under the pretense of awaitin a chance for deportation7orunless the )overn"ent ad"its that itcan not deport hi"3or unless the detainee is bein held fortoo lon a period our courts will not interfere.

:&n the 'nited #tates there were at least two instances in which courts fi6ed a ti"e li"it withinwhich the i"prisoned aliens should be deported0otherwise their release would be ordered b! writof habeas corpus. Nevertheless, supposin such precedents appl! in this jurisdiction, still wehave no sufficient data fairl! to fi6 a definite deadline.:

The difference between this and the Borovs-! case lies in the fact that the record shows thispetitioner has been detained since March, 123+. >owever, considerin that in the 'nited #tates;where transportation facilities are "uch reater and diplo"atic arrane"ents are easier to "a-eihwa!s were to answer. That the! did in a pleadin sub"itted b! #olicitor)eneral Estelito P. Mendo@a. 2&"pressed with a hihl! persuasive ualit!, it "a-es devoid clear

that the i"putation of a constitutional infir"it! is devoid of justification The (etter of &nstructionon is a valid police power "easure. Nor could the i"ple"entin rules and reulations issued b!


5/146

respondent Edu be considered as a"ountin to an e6ercise of leislative power. Accordinl!, thepetition "ust be dis"issed.

The facts are undisputed. The assailed (etter of &nstruction No. 2 of President Marcos, issuedon ece"ber , 1283, reads in full= :5hereasD, statistics show that one of the "ajor causes of

fatal or serious accidents in land transportation is the presence of disabled, stalled or par-ed"otor vehicles alon streets or hihwa!s without an! appropriate earl! warnin device to sinalapproachin "otorists of their presence 5hereasD, the ha@ards posed b! such obstructions totraffic have been reconi@ed b! international bodies concerned with traffic safet!, the 12*+ienna Convention on Road #ins and #inals and the 'nited Nations 4rani@ation ;'.N.e

shall also pro"ulate such rules and reulations as are appropriate to effectivel! i"ple"ent thisorder. 3. All hereb! concerned shall closel! coordinate and ta-e such "easures as are necessar!or appropriate to carr! into effect then instruction. 3Thereafter, on Nove"ber 10, 128*, it wasa"ended b! (etter of &nstruction No. 382 in this wise. :Pararaph 7 of (etter of &nstruction No.2 is hereb! a"ended to read as follows= 7. The (and transportation Co""issioner shallreuire ever! "otor vehicle owner to procure fro" an! and present at the reistration of hisvehicle, one pair of a reflectori@ed earl! warnin device, as d bed of an! brand or "a-e chosenb! "id "otor vehicle . The (and Transportation Co""issioner shall also pro"ulate such rule

and reulations as are appropriate to effectivel! i"ple"ent this order.%: 4There was issuedaccordinl!, b! respondent Edu, the i"ple"entin rules and reulations on ece"ber 19, 128*. 5

The! were not enforced as President Marcos on $anuar! 0, 1288, ordered a si6?"onth period ofsuspension insofar as the installation of earl! warnin device as a pre?reistration reuire"entfor "otor vehicle was concerned.


6/146

No. 382, reuirin the use of Earl! 5arnin evices ;E5< on "otor vehicle, the followinrules and reulations are hereb! issued= 1. (TC Ad"inistrative 4rder No. 1, dated ece"ber 19,128* shall now be i"ple"ented provided that the device "a! co"e fro" whatever source andthat it shall have substantiall! co"plied with the E5 specifications contained in #ection ofsaid ad"inistrative order . &n order to insure that ever! "otor vehicle , e6cept "otorc!cles, is

euipped with the device, a pair of seriall! nu"bered stic-ers, to be issued free of chare b! thisCo""ission, shall be attached to each E5. The E5. serial nu"ber shall be indicated on thereistration certificate and official receipt of pa!"ent of current reistration fees of the "otorvehicle concerned. All 4rders, Circulars, and Me"oranda in conflict herewith are hereb!superseded, This 4rder shall ta-e effect i""ediatel!. 9&t was for i""ediate i"ple"entation b!respondent Alfredo (. $uinio, as Minister of Public 5or-s, transportation, and Co""unications.10

Petitioner, after settin forth that he :is the owner of a ol-swaen Beetle Car, Model 17970,

alread! properl! euipped when it ca"e out fro" the asse"bl! lines with blin-in lihts foreand aft, which could ver! well serve as an earl! warnin device in case of the e"erencies"entioned in (etter of &nstructions No. 2, as a"ended, as well as the i"ple"entin rules andreulations in Ad"inistrative 4rder No. 1 issued b! the land transportation Co""ission,: 11alleed that said (etter of &nstruction No. 2, as a"ended, :clearl! violates the provisions anddeleation of police power, sicD G G G= : /or hi" the! are :oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrar!,confiscator!, na! unconstitutional and contrar! to the precepts of our co"passionate New#ociet!.: 12>e contended that the! are :infected with arbitrariness because it is harsh, cruel and

unconscionable to the "otorin public: 13are :one?sided, onerous and patentl! illeal andi""oral because the!D will "a-e "anufacturers and dealers instant "illionaires at the e6pense

of car owners who are co"pelled to bu! a set of the so?called earl! warnin device at the rate ofP 0*.99 to P8.99 per set.: 14are unlawful and unconstitutional and contrar! to the precepts of aco"passionate New #ociet! as beinD co"pulsor! and confiscator! on the part of the "otoristswho could ver! well provide a practical alternative road safet! device, or a better substitute tothe specified set of E5%s.: 15>e therefore pra!ed for a jud"ent both the assailed (etters of&nstructions and Me"orandu" Circular void and unconstitutional and for a restrainin order inthe "eanwhile.

A resolution to this effect was handed down b! this Court on 4ctober 12, 128+= :(?3211;(eovillo C. Austin v. >on. Ro"eo /. Edu, etc., et al.< H Considerin the alleations contained,

the issues raised and the aru"ents adduced in the petition for prohibition with writ of pprohibitor! andIor "andator! injunction, the Court Resolved to ;reuire< the respondents to filean answer thereto within ton ;19< da!s fro" notice and not to "ove to dis"iss the petition. TheCourt further Resolved to issueD a te"porar! restrainin orderD effective as of this date andcontinuin until otherwise ordered b! this Court.1


7/146

Two "otions for e6tension were filed b! the 4ffice of the #olicitor )eneral and ranted. Then onNove"ber 10, 128+, he Answer for respondents was sub"itted. After ad"ittin the factualalleations and statin that the! lac-ed -nowlede or infor"ation sufficient to for" a belief as topetitioner ownin a ol-swaen Beetle car,: the! :specificall! den! the alleations and statinthe! lac-ed -nowlede or infor"ation sufficient to for" a belief as to petitioner ownin a

ol-swaen Beetle Car, 1the! specificall! den! the alleations in pararaphs J and J&;includin its subpararaphs 1, , 7, 3< of Petition to the effect that (etter of &nstruction No. 2as a"ended b! (etters of &nstructions Nos. 382 and 81* as well as (and transportationCo""ission Ad"inistrative 4rder No. 1 and its Me"orandu" Circular No. 7 violates theconstitutional provisions on due process of law, eual protection of law and undue deleation ofpolice power, and that the sa"e are li-ewise oppressive, arbitrar!, confiscator!, one?sided,onerous, i""oral unreasonable and illeal the truth bein that said alleations are without lealand factual basis and for the reasons alleed in the #pecial and Affir"ative efenses of thisAnswer.:18'nli-e petitioner who contented hi"self with a rhetorical recital of his litan! of

rievances and "erel! invo-ed the sacra"ental phrases of constitutional litiation, the Answer,in de"onstratin that the assailed (etter of &nstruction was a valid e6ercise of the police powerand i"ple"entin rules and reulations of respondent Edu not susceptible to the chare thatthere was unlawful deleation of leislative power, there was in the portion captioned #pecialand Affir"ative efenses, a citation of what respondents believed to be the authoritativedecisions of this Tribunal callin for application. The! are Calalang $. 1illia"s, 19Morfe $.Mutuc, 20anddu $. ricta. 21Reference was li-ewise "ade to the 12*+ ienna Conventions ofthe 'nited Nations on road traffic, road sins, and sinals, of which the Philippines was asinator! and which was dul! ratified. 22#olicitor )eneral Mendo@a too- pains to refute in detail,in lanuae cal" and dispassionate, the viorous, at ti"es inte"perate, accusation of petitioner

that the assailed (etter of &nstruction and the i"ple"entin rules and reulations cannot survivethe test of riorous scrutin!. To repeat, its hihl!?persuasive ualit! cannot be denied.

This Court thus considered the petition sub"itted for decision, the issues bein clearl! joined. Asnoted at the outset, it is far fro" "eritorious and "ust be dis"issed.

1. The (etter of &nstruction in uestion was issued in the e6ercise of the police power. That isconceded b! petitioner and is the "ain reliance of respondents. &t is the sub"ission of the for"er,however, that while e"braced in such a cateor!, it has offended aainst the due process andeual protection safeuards of the Constitution, althouh the latter point was "entioned onl! in

passin. The broad and e6pansive scope of the police power which was oriinall! &dentified b!Chief $ustice Tane! of the A"erican #upre"e Court in an 1+38 decision as :nothin "ore or lessthan the powers of overn"ent inherent in ever! sovereint!: 23was stressed in theafore"entioned case ofdu $. ricta thus= :$ustice (aurel, in the first leadin decision after theConstitution ca"e into force, Calalang $. 1illia"s, &dentified police power with state authorit!to enact leislation that "a! interfere with personal libert! or propert! in order to pro"ote theeneral welfare. Persons and propert! could thus %be subjected to all -inds of restraints and


8/146

burdens in order to we the eneral co"fort, health and prosperit! of the state.% #hortl! afterindependence in 123+,!ri"icias $. Fugoso reiterated the doctrine, such a co"petence beinreferred to as %the power to prescribe reulations to pro"ote the health, "orals, peace, education,ood order or safet!, and eneral welfare of the people. The concept was set forth in neativeter"s b! $ustice Malcol" in a pre?Co""onwealth decision as %that inherent and plenar! power

in the #tate which enables it to prohibit all thins hurtful to the co"fort, safet! and welfare ofsociet!. &n that sense it could be hardl! distinuishable as noted b! this Court in Morfe v. Mutucwith the totalit! of leislative power. &t is in the above sense the reatest and "ost powerful at.tribute of overn"ent. &t is, to uote $ustice Malcol" anew, %the "ost essential, insistent, and atleast table powers, & e6tendin as $ustice >ol"es aptl! pointed out %to all the reat public needs.%&ts scope, ever?e6pandin to "eet the e6iencies of the ti"es, even to anticipate the future whereit could be done, provides enouh roo" for an efficient and fle6ible response to conditions andcircu"stances thus assurin the reatest benefits. &n the lanuae of $ustice Cardo@o= %Needs thatwere narrow or parochial in the past "a! be interwoven in the present with the well?bein of the

nation. 5hat is critical or urent chanes with the ti"e.% The police power is thus a d!na"icaenc!, suitabl! vaue and far fro" precisel! defined, rooted in the conception that "en inorani@in the state and i"posin upon its overn"ent li"itations to safeuard constitutionalrihts did not intend thereb! to enable an individual citi@en or a roup of citi@ens to obstructunreasonabl! the enact"ent of such salutar! "easures calculated to co""unal peace, safet!,ood order, and welfare.: 24

. &t was thus a heav! burden to be shouldered b! petitioner, co"pounded b! the fact that the

particular police power "easure challened was clearl! intended to pro"ote public safet!. &twould be a rare occurrence indeed for this Court to invalidate a leislative or e6ecutive act of

that character. None has been called to our attention, an indication of its bein non?e6istent. Thelatest decision in point, Edu v. Ericta, sustained the validit! of the Reflector (aw, 25an enact"entconceived with the sa"e end in view. Calalang $. 1illia"s found nothin objectionable in astatute, the purpose of which was= :To pro"ote safe transit upon, and. avoid obstruction on roadsand streets desinated as national roads G G G. 2


9/146

presu"ption of constitutionalit! "ust prevail in the absence of so"e factual foundation of recordin overthrowin the statute. 29

3. Nor did the #olicitor )eneral as he ver! well could, rel! solel! on such rebutted presu"ptionof validit!. As was pointed out in his Answer :The President certainl! had in his possession the

necessar! statistical infor"ation and data at the ti"e he issued said letter of instructions, andsuch factual foundation cannot be defeated b! petitioner%s na-ed assertion that earl! warnindevices %are not too vital to the prevention of nihtti"e vehicular accidents% because alleedl!onl! 729 or 1.0 per cent of the supposed *,999 "otor vehicle accidents that in 128* involvedrear?end collisions ;p. 1 of petition


10/146

*. Nor did the other e6travaant assertions of constitutional deficienc! o unrefuted in theAnswer of the #olicitor )eneral :There is nothin in the uestioned (etter of &nstruction No.2, as a"ended, or in Ad"inistrative 4rder No. 1, which reuires or co"pels "otor vehicleowners to purchase the earl! warnin device prescribed thereb!. All that is reuired is for "otorvehicle owners concerned li-e petitioner, to euip their "otor vehicles with a pair of this earl!

warnin device in uestion, procurin or obtainin the sa"e fro" whatever source. &n fact, witha little of industr! and practical inenuit!, "otor vehicle owners can even personall! "a-e orproduce this earl! warnin device so lon as the sa"e substantiall! confor"s with thespecifications laid down in said letter of instruction and ad"inistrative order. Accordinl! theearl! warnin device reuire"ent can neither be oppressive, onerous, i""oral, nor confiscator!,"uch less does it "a-e "anufacturers and dealers of said devices %instant "illionaires at thee6pense of car owners% as petitioner so sweepinl! concludes G G G. Petitioner%s fear that with theearl! warnin device reuire"ent %a "ore subtle rac-et "a! be co""itted b! those called uponto enforce it G G G is an unfounded speculation. Besides, that unscrupulous officials "a! tr! to

enforce said reuire"ent in an unreasonable "anner or to an unreasonable deree, does notrender the sa"e illeal or i""oral where, as in the instant case, the challened (etter of&nstruction No. 2 and i"ple"entin order disclose none of the constitutional defects alleedaainst it.32

8 &t does appear clearl! that petitioner%s objection to this (etter of &nstruction is not pre"ised onlac- of power, the justification for a findin of unconstitutionalit!, but on the pessi"istic, not tosa! neative, view he entertains as to its wisdo". That approach, it put it at its "ildest, is

distinuished, if that is the appropriate word, b! its unorthodo6!. &t bears repeatin :that thisCourt, in the lanuae of $ustice (aurel, %does not pass upon uestions of wisdo" justice or

e6pedienc! of leislation.% As e6pressed b! $ustice Tuason= %&t is not the province of the courts tosupervise leislation and -eep it within the bounds of propriet! and co""on sense. That ispri"aril! and e6clusivel! a leislative concern.% There can be no possible objection then to theobservation of $ustice Monte"a!or. %As lon as laws do not violate an! Constitutional provision,the Courts "erel! interpret and appl! the" reardless of whether or not the! are wise or salutar!./or the!, accordin to $ustice (abrador, %are not supposed to override leiti"ate polic! and G G Gnever inuire into the wisdo" of the law.% &t is thus settled, to paraphrase Chief $usticeConcepcion in )on@ales v. Co""ission on Elections, that onl! conressional power or

co"petence, not the wisdo" of the action ta-en, "a! be the basis for declarin a statute invalid.This is as it ouht to be. The principle of separation of powers has in the "ain wisel! allocated

the respective authorit! of each depart"ent and confined its jurisdiction to such a sphere. Therewould then be intrusion not allowable under the Constitution if on a "atter left to the discretionof a coordinate branch, the judiciar! would substitute its own. &f there be adherence to the rule oflaw, as there ouht to be, the last offender should be courts of justice, to which rihtl! litiantssub"it their controvers! precisel! to "aintain uni"paired the supre"ac! of leal nor"s andprescriptions. The attac- on the validit! of the challened provision li-ewise insofar as there "a!be objections, even if valid and coent on is wisdo" cannot be sustained. 33


11/146

+. The alleed infrine"ent of the funda"ental principle of non?deleation of leislative poweris euall! without an! support well?settled leal doctrines. >ad petitioner ta-en the trouble toacuaint hi"self with authoritative pronounce"ents fro" this Tribunal, he would not have thete"erit! to "a-e such an assertion. An e6e"pt fro" the aforecited decision ofdu $. rictasheds liht on the "atter= :To avoid the taint of unlawful deleation, there "ust be a standard,

which i"plies at the ver! least that the leislature itself deter"ines "atters of principle and la!sdown funda"ental polic!. 4therwise, the chare of co"plete abdication "a! be hard to repel Astandard thus defines leislative polic!, "ar-s its "aps out its boundaries and specifies thepublic aenc! to appl! it. &t indicates the circu"stances under which the leislative co""and isto be effected. &t is the criterion b! which leislative purpose "a! be carried out. Thereafter, thee6ecutive or ad"inistrative office desinated "a! in pursuance of the above uidelinespro"ulate supple"ental rules and reulations. The standard "a! be either e6press or i"plied. &fthe for"er, the non?deleation objection is easil! "et. The standard thouh does not have to bespelled out specificall!. &t could be i"plied fro" the polic! and purpose of the act considered as

a whole. &n the Reflector (aw clearl!, the leislative objective is public safet!. 5hat is souht tobe attained as in Calalang $. 1illia"s is :safe transit upon the roads.% This is to adhere to thereconition iven e6pression b! $ustice (aurel in a decision announced not too lon after theConstitution ca"e into force and effect that the principle of non?deleation :has been "ade toadapt itself to the co"ple6ities of "odern overn"ents, ivin rise to the adoption, withincertain li"its, of the principle of :subordinate leislation: not onl! in the 'nited #tates andEnland but in practicall! all "odern overn"ents.% >e continued= %Accordinl!, with therowin co"ple6it! of "odern life, the "ultiplication of the subjects of overn"entalreulation, and the increased difficult! of ad"inisterin the laws, there is a constantl! rowintendenc! toward the deleation of reater powers b! the leislature and toward the approval of

the practice b! the courts.% Consistenc! with the conceptual approach reuires the re"inder thatwhat is deleated is authorit! non?leislative in character, the co"pleteness of the statute when itleaves the hands of Conress bein assu"ed.: 34

2. The conclusion reached b! this Court that this petition "ust be dis"issed is reinforced b! thisconsideration. The petition itself uoted these two whereas clauses of the assailed (etter of&nstruction= :5hereasD, the ha@ards posed b! such obstructions to traffic have been reconi@edb! international bodies concerned with traffic safet!, the 12*+ ienna Convention on Road #ins

and #inals and the 'nited Nations 4rani@ation ;'.N.


12/146

19. That is about all that needs be said. The rather court reference to eual protection did noteven elicit an! atte"pt on the Part of Petitioner to substantiate in a "anner clear, positive, andcateorical wh! such a casual observation should be ta-en seriousl!. &n no case is there a "oreappropriate occasion for insistence on what was referred to as :the eneral rule: in Santiago $.Far astern #roadcasting Co., 3na"el!, :that the constitutionalit! of a law wi not be

considered unless the point is speciall! pleaded, insisted upon, and adeuatel! arued.: 38:Eualprotection: is not a talis"anic for"ula at the "ere invocation of which a part! to a lawsuit canrihtfull! e6pect that success will crown his efforts. The law is an!thin but that.

5>ERE/4RE, this petition is dis"issed. The restrainin order is lifted. This decision isi""ediatel! e6ecutor!. No costs.

Castro, C.J., #arredo, Antonio, Santos, Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, /e Castro andMelencio)2errera, concur.

Ma%asiar, J, reser$es the right to file a separate opinion.

A0uino J., too% no part.

Concepcion J., is on lea$e.

Castro, C.J., certifies that Justice Concepcion concurs in their decision.

S$%&'&($ O%)*)o*+

TEE/N=EE,J., dissentin=

& dissent fro" the "ajorit!%s pere"ptor! dis"issal of the petition and liftin of the restraininorder issued on 4ctober 12, 128+ aainst the blan-et enforce"ent of the reuire"ent that all

"otor vehicles be euipped with the so?called earl! warnin device, without even hearin theparties in oral aru"ent as enerall! reuired b! the Court in oriinal cases of far?reachin

conseuence such as the case at bar.

(ac- of ti"e presents "! filin an e6tended dissent. & onl! wish to state that the petitionadvances rave and serious rounds of assailin :the rules and reulations issued b! the (andTransportation Co""ission under Ad"inistrative 4rder No. 1 and Me"orandu" Circular No.


13/146

7 whichD do not reflect the real intent, noble objectives and spirit of (etter of &nstructions No.2, as a"ended b! (etter of &nstructions Nos. 382 and 81*, because it is oppressive,unreasonable, arbitrar!, confiscator!, na! unconstitutional and contrar! to the precepts of ourco"passionate New #ociet!,: because of the followin considerations, inter alia5

1. &t is oppressive, arbitrar! and discri"inator! to reuire owners of "otor vehicles with built?inand "ore effective and efficient E.5..%# such as :a< blin-in lihts in the fore and aft of said"otor vehicles, 1


14/146

the wron i"pression that the e6ercise of police power insofar as it "a! affect the life, libert!and propert! of an! person is no loner subject to judicial inuir!.

> S$%&'&($ O%)*)o*+

TEE/N=EE,J., dissentin=

& dissent fro" the "ajorit!%s pere"ptor! dis"issal of the petition and liftin of the restraininorder issued on 4ctober 12, 128+ aainst the blan-et enforce"ent of the reuire"ent that all"otor vehicles be euipped with the so?called earl! warnin device, without even hearin the

parties in oral aru"ent as enerall! reuired b! the Court in oriinal cases of far?reachin

conseuence such as the case at bar.

(ac- of ti"e presents "! filin an e6tended dissent. & onl! wish to state that the petitionadvances rave and serious rounds of assailin :the rules and reulations issued b! the (andTransportation Co""ission under Ad"inistrative 4rder No. 1 and Me"orandu" Circular No.7 whichD do not reflect the real intent, noble objectives and spirit of (etter of &nstructions No.

2, as a"ended b! (etter of &nstructions Nos. 382 and 81*, because it is oppressive,unreasonable, arbitrar!, confiscator!, na! unconstitutional and contrar! to the precepts of ourco"passionate New #ociet!,: because of the followin considerations, inter alia5

1. &t is oppressive, arbitrar! and discri"inator! to reuire owners of "otor vehicles with built?inand "ore effective and efficient E.5..%# such as :a< blin-in lihts in the fore and aft of said"otor vehicles, 1


15/146

3. No real effort has been "ade to show that there can be practical and less burdenso"ealternative road safet! devices for stalled vehicles than the prescribed E.5.., such as theco""on petroleu" la"ps :-in-e: which can be placed just as effectivel! in front of stalledvehicles on the hihwa!s and

0. There is no i"perative need for i"posin such a bet reuire"ent on all vehicles. Therespondents have not shown that the! have availed of the powers and preroatives vested in theiroffices such as riddin the countr! of dilapidated truc-s and vehicles which are the "ain cause ofthe deplorable ?hihwa! accidents due to stoned vehicles, establishin an honest and foolproofs!ste" of e6a"ination and licensin of "otor vehicle drivers so as to ban the rec-less andirresponsible and a sustained education ca"pain to instill safe drivin habits and attitudes thatcan be carried out for "uch less than the P 09 "illion burden that would be i"posed b! the

challened order.

& do feel that a reater :deree of receptivit! and s!"path!: could be e6tended to the petitionerfor his civic "indedness in havin filed the present petition as capricious and unreasonable the:all pervadin police power: of the #tate instead of throwin the case out of court and leavinthe wron i"pression that the e6ercise of police power insofar as it "a! affect the life, libert!and propert! of an! person is no loner subject to judicial inuir!.


16/146

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No.


17/146

UNITE! ST/TES O /MERIC/, M/JOR GENER/L MIC/EL P. C. C/RNS, /ICERNEST E. RIENBURG, /IC ROBIN BLEINS, SGT. NOEL /. GON"/LES, SGT.TOM/S MITCELL, SGT. 7/?NE L. BENJ/MIN, ET /L., %$()()o*$'+,A+.ON. CONCEPCION S. /L/RCON ERG/R/, &+ P'$+))*: Ju:$, B'&*


18/146

&'$'+o% ;oul $ &A&)l&l$ o*ly y ($ $* o6 Ju*$ &* ($ %')A&($ '$+%o*$*(+ ;oul$ *o()6)$.

O* Ju*$ 30, 198


19/146

O* !$$$' 11, 198


20/146

o*u($ y ($ )*)A)u&l %$()()o*$'+ $'$)*, *&$ly, To) J. =)*:, !&''$l !. !y$ &*S($%$* . Bo+(), o66)$'+ o6 ($ U.S. /)' o'$ &* +%$)&l &:$*(+ o6 ($ /)' o'$ O66)$o6 S%$)&l I*A$+():&(o'+ /OSI. O* ($ &+)+ o6 ($ +;o'* +(&($$*(+ &$ y ($, &*)*6o'&()o* 6o' A)ol&()o* o6 R./.


21/146

6o' ($6( &* ;$'$ )(($* y ($ o:+ $&u+$ ($y ;$'$ +('u::l)*: &* '$+)+()*: &''$+(, T$$6$*&*(+ +('$++ (&( ($ o:+ ;$'$ &ll$ o66 &* ($ %l&)*()66+ ;$'$ )$)&($ly (&$* (o($ $)&l $*($' 6o' ('$&($*( o6 ($)' ;ou*+.

I* & o()o* (o )+)++ ($ o%l&)*(, ($ U*)($ S(&($+ o6 /$')& &* ($ )*)A)u&lly

*&$ $6$*&*(+ &':u$ (&( ($ +u)( ;&+ )* $66$( & +u)( &:&)*+( ($ U*)($ S(&($+, ;)& *o( :)A$* )(+ o*+$*( (o $ +u$. T$ $6$*&*(+ ;$'$ &l+o )u*$ 6'o +u)( u*$' ($RP-US B&+$+ T'$&(y 6o' &(+ o*$ y ($ )* ($ %$'6o'&*$ o6 ($)' o66))&l 6u*()o*+.

T$ o()o* (o )+)++ ;&+ $*)$ y ($ (')&l ou'( )* )(+ o'$' &($ /u:u+( 10, 198,'$&)*: )* %&'( &+ 6ollo;+#

T$ $6$*&*(+ $'(&)*ly &**o( o''$(ly &':u$ (&( ($y &'$ )u*$ 6'o+u)(. T$ &ll$:&()o*+, o6 ($ o%l&)*( ;) )+ +ou:( (o $ )+)++$, & (o$ y%o($()&lly &)(($ &* ;&($A$' :'ou* ($ $6$*&*(+ &y &A$,

& (o $ A$*()l&($ u')*: ($ (')&l o6 ($ &+$ o* ($ $')(+. T$ o%l&)*(&ll$:$ '))*&l &(+ &:&)*+( ($ )*)A)u&lly-*&$ $6$*&*(+ &* 6'o ($*&(u'$ o6 +&) &(+ )( oul *o( $ +&) (&( ($y &'$ /(+ o6 S(&($, 6o' ;))u*)(y +oul $ )*Ao$. I6 ($ )l)%)*o+ ($+$lA$+ &'$ u(y ou* (o'$+%$(, o$y &* +u)( ($+$lA$+ (o ($ l&;+ o6 ($ ou*('y, ;)( o'$'$&+o*, ($ $$'+ o6 ($ U*)($ S(&($+ /'$ o'$+ ;o &'$ $)*:('$&($ &+ :u$+(+ o6 ()+ ou*('y +oul '$+%$(, o$y &* +u)( ($+$lA$+(o )(+ l&;+. 10

&* +o ;&+ ($ o()o* 6o' '$o*+)$'&()o*. T$ $6$*&*(+ +u)(($ ($)' &*+;$' &+'$u)'$ u( +u+$u$*(ly 6)l$ ($)' %$()()o* 6o' certiorari&* %'o))()o* ;)(%'$l))*&'y )*Du*()o* ;)( ()+ Cou'(. 7$ )++u$ & ($%o'&'y '$+('&)*)*: o'$' o*O(o$' 2, 198. 11

II

T$ 'ul$ (&( & +(&($ &y *o( $ +u$ ;)(ou( )(+ o*+$*(, *o; $%'$++$ )* /'()l$ I,S$()o* 3, o6 ($ 198 Co*+()(u()o*, )+ o*$ o6 ($ :$*$'&lly &$%($ %')*)%l$+ o6)*($'*&()o*&l l&; (&( ;$ &A$ &o%($ &+ %&'( o6 ($ l&; o6 ou' l&* u*$' /'()l$ II,

S$()o* 2. T)+ l&(($' %'oA)+)o* $'$ly '$)($'&($+ & %ol)y $&'l)$' $o)$ )* ($ 1935 &*193 Co*+()(u()o*+ &* &l+o )*($*$ (o &*)6$+( ou' '$+olA$ (o &)$ y ($ 'ul$+ o6 ($)*($'*&()o*&l ou*)(y.

EA$* ;)(ou( +u &66)'&()o*, ;$ ;oul +()ll $ ou* y ($ :$*$'&lly &$%($%')*)%l$+ o6 )*($'*&()o*&l l&; u*$' ($ o(')*$ o6 )*o'%o'&()o*. U*$' ()+ o(')*$, &+&$%($ y ($ &Do')(y o6 +(&($+, +u %')*)%l$+ &'$ $$$ )*o'%o'&($ )* ($ l&; o6


22/146

$A$'y )A)l)F$ +(&($ &+ & o*)()o* &* o*+$u$*$ o6 )(+ $$'+)% )* ($ +o)$(y o6*&()o*+. U%o* )(+ &)++)o* (o +u +o)$(y, ($ +(&($ )+ &u(o&()&lly ol):&($ (o o%ly;)( ($+$ %')*)%l$+ )* )(+ '$l&()o*+ ;)( o($' +(&($+.

/+ &%%l)$ (o ($ lo&l +(&($, ($ o(')*$ o6 +(&($ )u*)(y )+ &+$ o* ($ Du+()6)&()o*

:)A$* y Ju+()$ ol$+ (&( K($'$ &* $ *o l$:&l '):( &:&)*+( ($ &u(o')(y ;)&$+ ($ l&; o* ;) ($ '):( $%$*+.K 12T$'$ &'$ o($' %'&()&l '$&+o*+ 6o' ($$*6o'$$*( o6 ($ o(')*$. I* ($ &+$ o6 ($ 6o'$):* +(&($ +ou:( (o $ )%l$&$ )* ($lo&l Du')+)()o*, ($ &$ )*))()o* )+ $%'$++$ )* ($ &)par in parem, non habetimperium./ll +(&($+ &'$ +oA$'$):* $u&l+ &* &**o( &++$'( Du')+)()o* oA$' o*$ &*o($'. /o*('&'y )+%o+)()o* ;oul, )* ($ l&*:u&:$ o6 & $l$'&($ &+$, Ku*uly A$ ($ %$&$ o6*&()o*+.K 13

7)l$ ($ o(')*$ &%%$&'+ (o %'o))( o*ly +u)(+ &:&)*+( ($ +(&($ ;)(ou( )(+ o*+$*(, )( )+&l+o &%%l)&l$ (o o%l&)*(+ 6)l$ &:&)*+( o66))&l+ o6 ($ +(&($ 6o' &(+ &ll$:$ly %$'6o'$y ($ )* ($ )+&':$ o6 ($)' u()$+. T$ 'ul$ )+ (&( )6 ($ Du:$*( &:&)*+( +uo66))&l+ ;)ll '$u)'$ ($ +(&($ )(+$l6 (o %$'6o' &* &66)'&()A$ &( (o +&()+6y ($ +&$, +u&+ ($ &%%'o%')&()o* o6 ($ &ou*( *$$$ (o %&y ($ &&:$+ &;&'$ &:&)*+( ($, ($+u)( u+( $ '$:&'$ &+ &:&)*+( ($ +(&($ )(+$l6 &l(ou: )( &+ *o( $$* 6o'&lly)%l$&$. 14I* +u & +)(u&()o*, ($ +(&($ &y oA$ (o )+)++ ($ o%l&)*( o* ($:'ou* (&( )( &+ $$* 6)l$ ;)(ou( )(+ o*+$*(.

T$ o(')*$ )+ +o$()$+ $')+)A$ly &ll$ K($ 'oy&l %'$'o:&()A$ o6 )+o*$+(yK $&u+$ o6($ %')A)l$:$ )( :'&*(+ ($ +(&($ (o $6$&( &*y l$:)()&($ l&) &:&)*+( )( y +)%ly )*Ao)*:

)(+ *o*-+u&)l)(y. T&( )+ &'ly 6&)', &( l$&+( )* $o'&() +o)$()$+, 6o' ($ +(&($ )+ *o( &*u*6$$l)*: (y'&*( u*oA$ y ($ A&l) l&)+ o6 )(+ )()F$*+. I* 6&(, ($ o(')*$ )+ *o(&+olu($ &* o$+ *o( +&y ($ +(&($ &y *o( $ +u$ u*$' &*y )'u+(&*$. O* ($o*('&'y, ($ 'ul$ +&y+ (&( ($ +(&($ &y *o( $ +u$ ;)(ou( )(+ o*+$*(, ;) l$&'ly)%o'(+ (&( )( &y $ +u$ )6 )( o*+$*(+.

T$ o*+$*( o6 ($ +(&($ (o $ +u$ &y $ &*)6$+($ $%'$++ly o' )%l)$ly. E%'$++o*+$*( &y $ $o)$ )* & :$*$'&l l&; o' & +%$)&l l&;. Co*+$*( )+ )%l)$ ;$* ($+(&($ $*($'+ )*(o & o*('&( o' )( )(+$l6 o$*$+ l)():&()o*.

T$ :$*$'&l l&; ;&)A)*: ($ )u*)(y o6 ($ +(&($ 6'o +u)( )+ 6ou* )* /( No. 3083, u*$';) ($ P)l)%%)*$ :oA$'*$*( Ko*+$*(+ &* +u)(+ (o $ +u$ u%o* &*y o*$y$l&) )*AolA)*: l)&)l)(y &')+)*: 6'o o*('&(, $%'$++ o' )%l)$, ;) oul +$'A$ &+ &&+)+ o6 )A)l &()o* $(;$$* %')A&($ %&'()$+.K I* Merritt v. Government of thePhiippine!san"s, 15& +%$)&l l&; ;&+ %&++$ (o $*&l$ & %$'+o* (o +u$ ($ :oA$'*$*( 6o' &* &ll$:$(o'(. 7$* ($ :oA$'*$*( $*($'+ )*(o & o*('&(, )( )+ $$$ (o &A$ $+$*$ (o ($l$A$l o6 ($ o($' o*('&()*: %&'(y &* )A$+($ o6 )(+ +oA$'$):* )u*)(y 6'o +u)( ;)(


23/146

)(+ )%l)$ o*+$*(. 1


24/146

&++u%()o* $)*: (&( ($'$ ;&+ & &*)6$+(&()o* o6 ($ +u)++)o* (oDu')+)()o* o* ($ %&'( o6 ($ 6o'$):* %o;$' ;$*$A$' &%%'o%')&($. Mo'$ (o($ %o)*( )+S(quia v. )me"a Lope%, ;$'$ %l&)*()66+ &+ l$++o'+ +u$ ($Co&*)*: G$*$'&l o6 ($ U*)($ S(&($+ /'y )* ($ P)l)%%)*$+, +$$)*:($ '$+(o'&()o* (o ($ o6 ($ &%&'($*( u)l)*:+ ($y o;*$ l$&+$ (o ($

U*)($ S(&($+ &'$ 6o'$+ +(&()o*$ )* ($ M&*)l& &'$&. / o()o* (o )+)++o* ($ :'ou* o6 *o*-+u&)l)(y ;&+ 6)l$ &* u%$l y '$+%o*$*( Ju:$.T$ &(($' ;&+ (&$* (o ()+ Cou'( )* & &*&u+ %'o$$)*:. I( 6&)l$. I(;&+ ($ 'ul)*: (&( '$+%o*$*( Ju:$ &($ o''$(ly o*+)$')*: (&( ($ 4&()o* u+( $ o*+)$'$ &+ o*$ &:&)*+( ($ U.S. GoA$'*$*(. T$ o%)*)o*o6 Ju+()$ Mo*($&yo' o*()*u$# HI( )+ l$&' (&( ($ ou'(+ o6 ($P)l)%%)*$+ )*lu)*: ($ Mu*))%&l Cou'( o6 M&*)l& &A$ *o Du')+)()o*oA$' ($ %'$+$*( &+$ 6o' u*l&;6ul $(&)*$'. T$ u$+()o* o6 l& o6Du')+)()o* ;&+ '&)+$ &* )*($'%o+$ &( ($ A$'y $:)**)*: o6 ($ &()o*.

T$ U.S. GoA$'*$*( &+ *o( :)A$* )(+ o*+$*( (o ($ 6)l)*: o6 ()+ +u)( ;))+ $++$*()&lly &:&)*+( $', (ou: *o( )* *&$. Mo'$oA$', ()+ )+ *o( o*ly &&+$ o6 & )()F$* 6)l)*: & +u)( &:&)*+( )+ o;* GoA$'*$*( ;)(ou( ($ l&(($'H+o*+$*( u( )( )+ o6 & )()F$* 6)')*: &* &()o* &:&)*+( & 6o'$):* :oA$'*$*(;)(ou( +&) :oA$'*$*(H+ o*+$*(, ;) '$*$'+ o'$ oA)ou+ ($ l& o6Du')+)()o* o6 ($ ou'(+ o6 )+ ou*('y. T$ %')*)%l$+ o6 l&; $)* ()+'ul$ &'$ +o $l$$*(&'y &* o6 +u :$*$'&l &$%(&*$ (&( ;$ $$ )(u**$$++&'y (o )($ &u(o')()$+ )* +u%%o'( ($'$o6 ($* &$Marve #ui"in*'orporation v. Phiippine +ar ama*e 'ommission, ;$'$ '$+%o*$*(, &U*)($ S(&($+ /:$*y $+(&l)+$ (o o%$*+&($ &&:$+ +u66$'$ y ($

P)l)%%)*$+ u')*: 7o'l 7&' II ;&+ $l &+ 6&ll)*: ;)()* ($ &oA$o(')*$ &+ ($ +u)( &:&)*+( )( ;oul $A$*(u&lly $ & &':$ &:&)*+( o'6)*&*)&l l)&)l)(y o6 ($ U*)($ S(&($+ GoA$'*$*( $&u+$ ... , ($Co)++)o* &+ *o 6u*+ o6 )(+ o;* 6o' ($ %u'%o+$ o6 %&y)*: o*$yDu:$*(+.H T$ Syu)& 'ul)*: ;&+ &:&)* $%l))(ly '$l)$ u%o* )*Marque%Lim v. -eson, )*AolA)*: & o%l&)*( 6o' ($ '$oA$'y o6 & o(o' l&u*, %lu+&&:$+, ($ +%$)&l $6$*+$ )*($'%o+$ $)*: H(&( ($ A$++$l $lo*:$ (o ($U*)($ S(&($+ GoA$'*$*(, (&( ($ $6$*&*(+ $'$ly &($ &+ &:$*(+ o6 +&)GoA$'*$*(, &* (&( ($ U*)($ S(&($+ GoA$'*$*( )+ ($'$6o'$ ($ '$&l%&'(y )* )*($'$+(.H So )( ;&+ )*Phiippine)ien Propert( )"ministration v.'asteo, ;$'$ )( ;&+ $l (&( & +u)( &:&)*+( /l)$* P'o%$'(y Cu+(o)&* &*($ /((o'*$y G$*$'&l o6 ($ U*)($ S(&($+ )*AolA)*: A$+($ %'o%$'(y u*$'($ T'&)*: ;)( ($ E*$y /( )+ )* +u+(&*$ & +u)( &:&)*+( ($ U*)($S(&($+. To ($ +&$ $66$( )+Parreno v. McGraner(, &+ ($ 6ollo;)*: $$'%(6'o ($ o%)*)o* o6 Du+()$ Tu&Fo* l$&'ly +o;+# HI( )+ & ;)$ly &$%($%')*)%l$ o6 )*($'*&()o*&l l&;, ;) )+ &$ & %&'( o6 ($ l&; o6 ($ l&*/'()l$ II, S$()o* 3 o6 ($ Co*+()(u()o*, (&( & 6o'$):* +(&($ &y *o( $


25/146

'ou:( (o +u)( $6o'$ ($ ou'(+ o6 &*o($' +(&($ o' )(+ o;* ou'(+ ;)(ou( )(+o*+$*(.H )*&lly, ($'$ )+Johnson v. $urner, &* &%%$&l y ($ $6$*&*(, ($*Co&*)*: G$*$'&l, P)l)%%)*$ Co&* /)' o'$, ;)( o66)$ &( Cl&')$l 6'o & $)+)o* o'$')*: ($ '$(u'* (o %l&)*()66 o6 ($ o*6)+&($)l)(&'y %&y$*( $'()6)&($+ *o;* &+ +')% o*$y. I* '$A$'+)*: ($ lo;$'

ou'( $)+)o*, ()+ T')u*&l, ('ou: Ju+()$ Mo*($&yo', '$l)$ o*S(quiav. )me"aLope%, $%l&)*)*: ;y )( oul *o( $ +u+(&)*$.

I( $&'+ +('$++)*: &( ()+ %o)*( (&( ($ &oA$ o+$'A&()o*+ o *o( o*6$' o* ($ U*)($S(&($+ o6 /$')& & l&*$( )u*)(y 6o' &ll &(+ o*$ y )( o' )(+ &:$*(+ )* ($ P)l)%%)*$+.N$)($' &y ($ o($' %$()()o*$'+ l&) (&( ($y &'$ &l+o )*+ul&($ 6'o +u)( )* ()+ou*('y $'$ly $&u+$ ($y &A$ &($ &+ &:$*(+ o6 ($ U*)($ S(&($+ )* ($ )+&':$ o6($)' o66))&l 6u*()o*+.

T$'$ )+ *o u$+()o* (&( ($ U*)($ S(&($+ o6 /$')&, l)$ &*y o($' +(&($, ;)ll $ $$$(o &A$ )%l)$ly ;&)A$ )(+ *o*-+u&)l)(y )6 )( &+ $*($'$ )*(o & o*('&( )* )(+ %'o%')$(&'yo' %')A&($ &%&)(y. I( )+ o*ly ;$* ($ o*('&( )*AolA$+ )(+ +oA$'$):* o' :oA$'*$*(&l&%&)(y (&( *o +u ;&)A$' &y $ )%l)$. T)+ ;&+ ou' 'ul)*: )* nite"States of)merica v. ui%,22;$'$ ($ ('&*+&()o* )* u$+()o* $&l( ;)( ($ )%'oA$$*( o6 ($;&'A$+ )* ($ *&A&l )*+(&ll&()o* &( Su) B&y. /+ ()+ ;&+ & l$&'ly :oA$'*$*(&l 6u*()o*,;$ $l (&( ($ o*('&( ) *o( o%$'&($ (o )A$+( ($ U*)($ S(&($+ o6 )(+ +oA$'$):*)u*)(y 6'o +u)(. I* ($ ;o'+ o6 Ju+()$ )$*($ /& S&*(o+#

T$ ('&)()o*&l 'ul$ o6 )u*)(y $$%(+ & S(&($ 6'o $)*: +u$ )* ($

ou'(+ o6 &*o($' S(&($ ;)(ou( )(+ o*+$*( o' ;&)A$'. T)+ 'ul$ )+ & *$$++&'yo*+$u$*$ o6 ($ %')*)%l$+ o6 )*$%$*$*$ &* $u&l)(y o6 S(&($+.o;$A$', ($ 'ul$+ o6 I*($'*&()o*&l L&; &'$ *o( %$(')6)$ ($y &'$ o*+(&*(ly$A$lo%)*: &* $AolA)*:. /* $&u+$ ($ &()A)()$+ o6 +(&($+ &A$ ul()%l)$,)( &+ $$* *$$++&'y (o )+()*:u)+ ($ $(;$$* +oA$'$):* &*:oA$'*$*(&l &(+ Du'$ )%$')) &* %')A&($, o$')&l &* %'o%')$(&'y&(+ Du'$ :$+()o*)+. T$ '$+ul( )+ (&( S(&($ )u*)(y *o; $($*+ o*ly (o&(+ Du'$ )%$')) T$ '$+(')()A$ &%%l)&()o* o6 S(&($ )u*)(y )+ *o; ($ 'ul$)* ($ U*)($ S(&($+, ($ U*)($ )*:o &* o($' +(&($+ )* 7$+($'* Eu'o%$.

T$ '$+(')()A$ &%%l)&()o* o6 S(&($ )u*)(y )+ %'o%$' o*ly ;$* ($%'o$$)*:+ &')+$ ou( o6 o$')&l ('&*+&()o*+ o6 ($ 6o'$):* +oA$'$):*, )(+o$')&l &()A)()$+ o' $o*o) &66&)'+. S(&($ )66$'$*(ly, & S(&($ &y $+&) (o &A$ $+$*$ (o ($ l$A$l o6 &* )*)A)u&l &* &* (u+ $ $$$(o &A$ (&)(ly :)A$* )(+ o*+$*( (o $ +u$ o*ly ;$* )( $*($'+ )*(o u+)*$++


26/146

o*('&(+. I( o$+ *o( &%%ly ;$'$ ($ o*('&( '$l&($+ (o ($ $$')+$ o6 )(++oA$'$):* 6u*()o*+. I* ()+ &+$ ($ %'oD$(+ &'$ &* )*($:'&l %&'( o6 ($ *&A&l&+$ ;) )+ $Ao($ (o ($ $6$*+$ o6 o( ($ U*)($ S(&($+ &* ($P)l)%%)*$+, )*)+%u(&ly & 6u*()o* o6 ($ :oA$'*$*( o6 ($ ):$+( o'$'($y &'$ *o( u()l)F$ 6o' *o' $)&($ (o o$')&l o' u+)*$++ %u'%o+$+.

T$ o($' %$()()o*$'+ )* ($ &+$+ $6o'$ u+ &ll &A$' ($y &A$ &($ )* ($ )+&':$ o6 ($)'o66))&l 6u*()o*+ &+ o66)$'+ o' &:$*(+ o6 ($ U*)($ S(&($+. o;$A$', ()+ )+ & &(($' o6$A)$*$. T$ &':$+ &:&)*+( ($ &y *o( $ +u&')ly )+)++$ o* ($)' $'$&++$'()o* (&( ($)' &(+ &'$ )%u(&l$ (o ($ U*)($ S(&($+ o6 /$')&, ;) &+ *o( :)A$*)(+ o*+$*( (o $ +u$. I* 6&(, ($ $6$*&*(+ &'$ +ou:( (o $ $l &*+;$'&l$ 6o' %$'+o*&l(o'(+ )* ;) ($ U*)($ S(&($+ )(+$l6 )+ *o( )*AolA$. I6 6ou* l)&l$, ($y &* ($y &lo*$u+( +&()+6y ($ Du:$*(.

I* /este0o v. /ernan"o, 23& u'$&u )'$(o', &()*: ;)(ou( &*y &u(o')(y ;&(+o$A$',&%%'o%')&($ %')A&($ l&* &* o*A$'($ )( )*(o %ul) )''):&()o* )($+. Su$ 6o' ($ A&lu$o6 ($ lo(+ )*A&l)ly (&$* y ), $ oA$ (o )+)++ ($ o%l&)*( o* ($ :'ou* (&( ($+u)( ;&+ )* $66$( &:&)*+( ($ P)l)%%)*$ :oA$'*$*(, ;) & *o( :)A$* )(+ o*+$*( (o $+u$. T)+ Cou'( +u+(&)*$ ($ $*)&l o6 ($ o()o* &* $l (&( ($ o(')*$ o6 +(&($)u*)(y ;&+ *o( &%%l)&l$. T$ )'$(o' ;&+ $)*: +u$ )* )+ %')A&($ &%&)(y 6o' &%$'+o*&l (o'(.

7)( ($+$ o*+)$'&()o*+ )* )*, ;$ *o; %'o$$ (o '$+olA$ ($ &+$+ &( &*.

III

I( )+ l$&' 6'o & +(uy o6 ($ '$o'+ o6 G.R. No. 80018 (&( ($ )*)A)u&lly-*&$%$()()o*$'+ ($'$)* ;$'$ &()*: )* ($ $$')+$ o6 ($)' o66))&l 6u*()o*+ ;$* ($yo*u($ ($ uy-u+( o%$'&()o* &:&)*+( ($ o%l&)*&*( &* ($'$&6($' ($+()6)$ &:&)*+() &( )+ (')&l. T$ +&) %$()()o*$'+ ;$'$ )* 6&( o**$($ ;)( ($ /)' o'$ O66)$ o6S%$)&l I*A$+():&(o'+ &* ;$'$ &':$ %'$)+$ly ;)( ($ 6u*()o* o6 %'$A$*()*: ($)+(')u()o*, %o++$++)o* &* u+$ o6 %'o))($ 'u:+ &* %'o+$u()*: (o+$ :u)l(y o6 +u&(+. I( &**o( 6o' & o$*( $ )&:)*$ (&( ($y ;$'$ &()*: )* ($)' %')A&($ o' u*o66))&l&%&)(y ;$* ($y &%%'$$*$ &* l&($' ($+()6)$ &:&)*+( ($ o%l&)*&*(. I( 6ollo;+ (&(

6o' )+&':)*: ($)' u()$+ &+ &:$*(+ o6 ($ U*)($ S(&($+, ($y &**o( $ )'$(ly)%l$&$ 6o' &(+ )%u(&l$ (o ($)' %')*)%&l, ;) &+ *o( :)A$* )(+ o*+$*( (o $ +u$./+ ;$ o+$'A$ )*San"ers v. 1eri"iano# 24

G)A$* ($ o66))&l &'&($' o6 ($ &oA$-$+')$ l$(($'+, ;$ &A$ (oo*lu$ (&( ($ %$()()o*$'+ ;$'$, l$:&lly +%$&)*:, $)*: +u$ &+ o66)$'+ o6($ U*)($ S(&($+ :oA$'*$*(. /+ ($y &A$ &($ o* $&l6 o6 (&(


27/146

:oA$'*$*(, &* ;)()* ($ +o%$ o6 ($)' &u(o')(y, )( )+ (&( :oA$'*$*(,&* *o( ($ %$()()o*$'+ %$'+o*&lly, (&( )+ '$+%o*+)l$ 6o' ($)' &(+.

T$ %')A&($ '$+%o*$*( )*Ao$+ /'()l$ 2180 o6 ($ C)A)l Co$ ;) ol+ ($ :oA$'*$*(l)&l$ )6 )( &(+ ('ou: & +%$)&l &:$*(. T$ &':u$*(, )( ;oul +$$, )+ %'$)+$ o* ($

:'ou* (&( +)*$ ($ o66)$'+ &'$ $+):*&($ K+%$)&l &:$*(+,K ($ U*)($ S(&($+:oA$'*$*( +oul $ l)&l$ 6o' ($)' (o'(+.

T$'$ +$$+ (o $ & 6&)lu'$ (o )+()*:u)+ $(;$$* +u&)l)(y &* l)&)l)(y &* &)+o*$%()o* (&( ($ (;o ($'+ &'$ +y*o*you+. Su&)l)(y $%$*+ o* ($ o*+$*( o6 ($+(&($ (o $ +u$, l)&)l)(y o* ($ &%%l)&l$ l&; &* ($ $+(&l)+$ 6&(+. T$ )'u+(&*$(&( & +(&($ )+ +u&l$ o$+ *o( *$$++&')ly $&* (&( )( )+ l)&l$ o* ($ o($' &*, )( &**$A$' $ $l l)&l$ )6 )( o$+ *o( 6)'+( o*+$*( (o $ +u$. L)&)l)(y )+ *o( o*$$ y ($$'$ 6&( (&( ($ +(&($ &+ &llo;$ )(+$l6 (o $ +u$. 7$* ($ +(&($ o$+ ;&)A$ )(++oA$'$):* )u*)(y, )( )+ o*ly :)A)*: ($ %l&)*()66 ($ &*$ (o %'oA$, )6 )( &*, (&( ($$6$*&*( )+ l)&l$.

T$ +&) &'()l$ $+(&l)+$+ & 'ul$ o6 iabiit(, *o( +u&)l)(y. T$ :oA$'*$*( &y $ $ll)&l$ u*$' ()+ 'ul$ o*ly )6 )( 6)'+( &llo;+ )(+$l6 (o $ +u$ ('ou: &*y o6 ($ &$%($6o'+ o6 o*+$*(.

Mo'$oA$', ($ &:$*( %$'6o')*: )+ '$:ul&' 6u*()o*+ )+ *o( & +%$)&l &:$*( $A$* )6 $ )+ +o$*o)*&($, &+ )* ($ &+$ &( &'. No l$++ )%o'(&*(, ($ +&) %'oA)+)o* &%%$&'+ (o '$:ul&($o*ly ($ '$l&()o*+ o6 ($ lo&l +(&($ ;)( )(+ )*&)(&*(+ &*, $*$, &%%l)$+ o*ly (o ($

P)l)%%)*$ :oA$'*$*( &* *o( (o 6o'$):* :oA$'*$*(+ )%l$&$ )* ou' ou'(+.

7$ '$D$( ($ o*lu+)o* o6 ($ (')&l ou'( (&( ($ &*+;$' 6)l$ y ($ +%$)&l ou*+$l o6 ($O66)$ o6 ($ S$')66 Ju:$ /Ao&($ o6 Cl&' /)' B&+$ ;&+ & +u)++)o* y ($ U*)($S(&($+ :oA$'*$*( (o )(+ Du')+)()o*. /+ ;$ *o($ )*epubic v. Purisima, 25$%'$++ ;&)A$'o6 )u*)(y &**o( $ &$ y & $'$ ou*+$l o6 ($ :oA$'*$*( u( u+( $ $66$($('ou: & uly-$*&($ +(&(u($. N$)($' o$+ +u &*+;$' o$ u*$' ($ )%l)$ 6o'+ o6o*+$*( &+ $&'l)$' )+u++$.

Bu( $A$* &+ ;$ &'$ $'(&)* (&( ($ )*)A)u&l %$()()o*$'+ )* G.R. No. 80018 ;$'$ &()*: )*

($ )+&':$ o6 ($)' o66))&l 6u*()o*+, ;$ $+)(&($ (o &$ ($ +&$ o*lu+)o* )* G.R.No. 80258. T$ o*('&)(o'y 6&(u&l &ll$:&()o*+ )* ()+ &+$ $+$'A$ )* ou' A)$; & lo+$'+(uy o6 ;&( &(u&lly &%%$*$ (o ($ %l&)*()66+. T$ '$o' )+ (oo $&:$' (o )*)&($ )6 ($$6$*&*(+ ;$'$ '$&lly )+&':)*: ($)' o66))&l u()$+ o' & &(u&lly $$$$ ($)'&u(o')(y ;$* ($ )*)$*( )* u$+()o* ou''$. L&)*: ()+ )*6o'&()o*, ()+ Cou'(&**o( )'$(ly $)$ ()+ &+$. T$ *$$$ )*u)'y u+( 6)'+( $ &$ y ($ lo;$' ou'(+o )( &y &++$++ &* '$+olA$ ($ o*6l)()*: l&)+ o6 ($ %&'()$+ o* ($ &+)+ o6 ($ $A)$*$


28/146

(&( &+ y$( (o $ %'$+$*($ &( ($ (')&l. O*ly &6($' )( +&ll &A$ $($')*$ )* ;&(&%&)(y ($ %$()()o*$'+ ;$'$ &()*: &( ($ ()$ o6 ($ )*)$*( )* u$+()o* ;)ll ()+ Cou'($($')*$, )6 +()ll *$$++&'y, )6 ($ o(')*$ o6 +(&($ )u*)(y )+ &%%l)&l$.

I* G.R. No. 940, %')A&($ '$+%o*$*( G$*oA$ ;&+ $%loy$ &+ & oo )* ($ M&)* Clu

lo&($ &( ($ U.S. /)' o'$ R$'$&()o* C$*($', &l+o *o;* &+ ($ O%$* M$++ Co%l$, &(Jo* &y /)' S(&()o*. /+ &*&:$' o6 ()+ o%l$, %$()()o*$' L&&)& )+ '$+%o*+)l$ 6o'$l$A$* )A$'+)6)$ &()A)()$+ :$*$'&()*: &* &**u&l )*o$ o6 2 )ll)o*. U*$' )+ $$u()A$&*&:$$*( &'$ ('$$ +$'A)$ '$+(&u'&*(+, & &6$($')&, & &$'y, & Cl&++ I +(o'$, & o66$$&* %&*('y +o%, & &)* &+)$' &:$, &* &)*)+('&()A$ o66)$, &* & $$*('&l)F$;&'$ou+$ ;) &)*(&)*+ & +(o l$A$l o6 200,000.00 %$' o*( )* '$+&l$ )($+. $+u%$'A)+$+ 1


29/146

;)( u')*$. T$ )*A$+():&()o*, )* 6&(, ) *o( +(o% ($'$. !$+%)($ ($ $6)*)()A$ 6)*)*: o6G$*oA$H+ :u)l(, ($ &+$ ;&+ +()ll '$6$''$ (o ($ o&' o6 &')('&(o'+ %'oA)$ 6o' )* ($oll$()A$ &':&)*)*: &:'$$$*(. T)+ o&' u*&*)ou+ly &66)'$ ($ 6)*)*:+ o6 ($)*A$+():&(o'+ &* '$o$*$ G$*oA$H+ )+)++&l. T$'$ ;&+ *o()*: &')('&'y &ou( ($%'o$$)*:+. T$ %$()()o*$'+ &($ u)($ %'o%$'ly )* ($')*&()*: ($ %')A&($ '$+%o*$*(H+

$%loy$*( 6o' )+ u*$l)$A&ly *&u+$&()*: &(. I( )+ +u'%')+)*: (&( $ +oul +()ll &A$($ ($$')(y (o 6)l$ )+ o%l&)*( 6o' &&:$+ &6($' o)(()*: )+ u(($'ly )+:u+()*:o66$*+$.

Co*$'*)*: G.R. No.


30/146

'$+olA$ )* & +%)')( o6 u(u&l &oo&()o* &* '$+%$(, ;)(ou( ($ )*o*A$*)$*$ &*&+%$')(y o6 l)():&()o* &* &l;&y+ ;)( Du+()$ (o o( %&'()$+.

7EREORE, &6($' o*+)$')*: &ll ($ &oA$ %'$)+$+, ($ Cou'( $'$y '$*$'+Du:$*( &+ 6ollo;+#

1. I* G.R. No.


31/146

liberties under the Bill of Rihts which shield hi" in ti"es of need. The Court is now called todecide whether to uphold a citi@en%s basic due process rihts, or the overn"ent%s ironclad dutiesunder a treat!. The bule sounds and this Court "ust once aain act as the faithful uardian ofthe funda"ental writ.

The petition at our doorstep is cast aainst the followin factual bac-drop=

4n $anuar! 17, 1288, then President /erdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential ecree No. 19*2:Prescribin the Procedure for the E6tradition of Persons 5ho >ave Co""itted Cri"es in a/orein Countr!:. The ecree is founded on= the doctrine of incorporation under theConstitution the "utual concern for the suppression of cri"e both in the state where it wasco""itted and the state where the cri"inal "a! have escaped the e6tradition treat! with theRepublic of &ndonesia and the intention of the Philippines to enter into si"ilar treaties with otherinterested countries and the need for rules to uide the e6ecutive depart"ent and the courts inthe proper i"ple"entation of said treaties.

4n Nove"ber 17, 1223, then #ecretar! of $ustice /ran-lin M. rilon, representin the)overn"ent of the Republic of the Philippines, sined in Manila the :E6tradition Treat!Between the )overn"ent of the Republic of the Philippines and the )overn"ent of the 'nited#tates of A"erica: ;hereinafter referred to as the RP?'# E6tradition Treat!


32/146

E< '#C 331f ;Election contributions in na"e of another thirt!?three 77D countsMa6i"u" Penalt! H less than one !ear


33/146

. The for"al reuest for e6tradition of the 'nited #tates contains rand jur! infor"ationand docu"ents obtained throuh rand jur! process covered b! strict secrec! rules under'nited #tates law. The 'nited #tates had to secure orders fro" the concerned istrictCourts authori@in the 'nited #tates to disclose certain rand jur! infor"ation toPhilippine overn"ent and law enforce"ent personnel for the purpose of e6tradition of

Mr. $i"ene@. An! further disclosure of the said infor"ation is not authori@ed b! the'nited #tates istrict Courts. &n this particular e6tradition reuest the 'nited #tates)overn"ent reuested the Philippine )overn"ent to prevent unauthori@ed disclosure ofthe subject infor"ation. This epart"ent%s denial of !our reuest is consistent withArticle 8 of the RP?'# E6tradition Treat! which provides that the Philippine )overn"ent"ust represent the interests of the 'nited #tates in an! proceedins arisin out of areuest for e6tradition. The epart"ent of $ustice under P.. No. 19*2 is the counsel ofthe forein overn"ents in all e6tradition reuests.

7. This epart"ent is not in a position to hold in abe!ance proceedins in connectionwith an e6tradition reuest. Article * of the ienna Convention on the (aw of Treaties,

to which we are a part! provides that :EDver! treat! in force is bindin upon the partiesto it and "ust be perfor"ed b! the" in ood faith:. E6tradition is a tool of cri"inal lawenforce"ent and to be effective, reuests for e6tradition or surrender of accused orconvicted persons "ust be processed e6peditiousl!.

;pp. 88?8+,Rollo.ERE&N PET&T&4NER T4 RE/RA&N /R4M C4MM&TT&N) T>EACT# C4MP(A&NE 4/,&.., T4 E#T /R4M RE/'#&N) PR&ATERE#P4NENT ACCE## T4 T>E 4//&C&A( EJTRA&T&4N RE'E#T AN4C'MENT# AN /R4M EN&N) PR&ATE RE#P4NENT AN4PP4RT'N&T T4 /&(E A C4MMENT 4N, 4R 4PP4#&T&4N T4, T>E RE'E#T,T>E MA&N PRAER /4R A 5R&T 4/MA(/AM7S &N T>E PET&T&4N /4RMA(/AM7S, CR'&RAR& AN PR4>&B&T&4N 5A#, &N E//ECT, )RANTE #4A# T4 C4N#T&T'TE AN A$'&CAT&4N 4N T>E MER&T# 4/ T>EMA(/AM7S#'E#

&&.

PET&T&4NER 5A# 'N'A(&/&E( PREENTE /R4M PER/4RM&N) (E)A('T&E# 'NER T>E EJTRA&T&4N TREAT AN T>E P>&(&PP&NEEJTRA&T&4N (A5

&&&.


35/146

T>E PET&T&4N /4R 8MA(/AM7S9, CR'&RAR& AN PR4>&B&T&4N , 4N &T#/ACE, /4RMA(( AN #'B#TANT&A(( E/&C&ENT AN

&.

PR&ATE RE#P4NENT >A# N4 R&)>T&( SS T>AT NEE# PR4TECT&4NAN EN/4RCEMENT, AN 5&(( N4T #'//ER AN &RREPARAB(E &N$'R.

;pp. 12?9,Rollo.owever, a review of these issues as well as the e6tensive aru"ents of both parties, co"pel usto delineate the focal point raised b! the pleadins= urin the evaluation stae of the e6traditionproceedins, is private respondent entitled to the two basic due process rihts of notice andhearinK An affir"ative answer would necessaril! render the proceedins at the trial court, "ootand acade"ic ;the issues of which are substantiall! the sa"e as those before us now


36/146

To be sure, the issues call for a review of the e6tradition procedure. The RP?'# E6traditionTreat! which was e6ecuted onl! on Nove"ber 17, 1223, ushered into force the i"ple"entinprovisions of Presidential ecree No. 19*2, also called as the Philippine E6tradition (aw.#ection ;a< thereof defines e6tradition as :the re"oval of an accused fro" the Philippines withthe object of placin hi" at the disposal of forein authorities to enable the reuestin state or

overn"ent to hold hi" in connection with an! cri"inal investiation directed aainst hi" or thee6ecution of a penalt! i"posed on hi" under the penal or cri"inal law of the reuestin state orovern"ent.: The portions of the ecree relevant to the instant case which involves a charedand not convicted individual, are abstracted as follows=

'he 3tradition Re0uest

The reuest is "ade b! the /orein iplo"at of the Reuestin #tate, addressed to the #ecretar!of /orein Affairs, and shall be acco"panied b!=

1. The oriinal or an authentic cop! of the cri"inal chare and the warrant of arrest

issued b! the authorit! of the Reuestin #tate havin jurisdiction over the "atter, orso"e other instru"ents havin euivalent leal force

. A recital of the acts for which e6tradition is reuested, with the fullest particulars as tothe na"e and identit! of the accused, his whereabouts in the Philippines, if -nown, theacts or o"issions co"plained of, and the ti"e and place of the co""ission of these acts

7. The te6t of the applicable law or a state"ent of the contents of said law, and thedesination or description of the offense b! the law, sufficient for evaluation of thereuest and

3. #uch other docu"ents or infor"ation in support of the reuest.

;#ec. 3. Presidential ecree No. 19*2.ow then could the /A #ecretar! or his undersecretar!, in less than one da!, "a-e the "oreauthoritative deter"inationK

The evaluation process, just li-e the e6tradition proceedins proper, belons to a class b! itself.&t issui generis. &t is not a cri"inal investiation, but it is also erroneous to sa! that it is purel!an e6ercise of "inisterial functions. At such stae, the e6ecutive authorit! has the power= ;a< to"a-e a technical assess"ent of the co"pleteness and sufficienc! of the e6tradition papers ;b< tooutrihtl! den! the reuest if on its face and on the face of the supportin docu"ents the cri"esindicated are not e6traditable and ;c< to "a-e a deter"ination whether or not the reuest ispoliticall! "otivated, or that the offense is a "ilitar! one which is not punishable under non?"ilitar! penal leislation ;tsn, Auust 71, 1222, pp. +?2 Article O and Pararaph 7D, Article7, RP?'# E6tradition Treat!ence, said process "a! be characteri@ed as an investiative orinuisitorial process in contrast to a proceedin conducted in the e6ercise of an ad"inistrativebod!%s uasi?judicial power.


40/146

&n ad"inistrative law, a uasi?judicial proceedin involves= ;a< ta-in and evaluation ofevidence ;b< deter"inin facts based upon the evidence presented and ;c< renderin an order ordecision supported b! the facts proved ;e (eon, Ad"inistrative (aw= Te6t and Cases, 1227 ed.,p. 12+, citin Moran vs. 'nited #tates, 793 '.#. 1


41/146

;Pararaph 0D, Article 2, RP?'# E6tradition Treat!


42/146

is placed second onl! to life itself and enjo!s precedence over propert!, for while forfeitedpropert! can be returned or replaced, the ti"e spent in incarceration is irretrievable and be!ondreco"pense.

B! co"parison, a favorable action in an e6tradition reuest e6poses a person to eventual

e6tradition to a forein countr!, thus salientl! e6hibitin the cri"inal or penal aspect of theprocess. &n this sense, the evaluation procedure is a-in to a preli"inar! investiation since bothprocedures "a! have the sa"e result H the arrest and i"prison"ent of the respondent or theperson chared. #i"ilar to the evaluation stae of e6tradition proceedins, a preli"inar!investiation, which "a! result in the filin of an infor"ation aainst the respondent, canpossibl! lead to his arrest, and to the deprivation of his libert!.

Petitioner%s reliance on 1right $s. Court of Appeals;70 #CRA 31 122D< ;p. +, petitioner%sMe"orandu"< that the e6tradition treat! is neither a piece of cri"inal leislation nor a cri"inalprocedural statute is not well?ta-en. 1rightis not authorit! for petitioner%s conclusion that hispreli"inar! processin is not a-in to a preli"inar! investiation. The characteri@ation of a treat!

in 1rightwas in reference to the applicabilit! of the prohibition aainst an e3 post factolaw. &thad nothin to do with the denial of the riht to notice, infor"ation, and hearin.

As earl! as 1++3, the 'nited #tates #upre"e Court ruled that :an! leal proceedin enforced b!public authorit!, whether sanctioned b! ae or custo", or newl! devised in the discretion of theleislative power, in furtherance of the eneral public ood, which reards and preserved theseprinciples of libert! and justice, "ust be held to be due process of law: ;>urtado vs. California,119 '.#. 01*


43/146

ue process is co"prised of two co"ponents H substantive due process which reuires theintrinsic validit! of the law in interferin with the rihts of the person to his life, libert!, orpropert!, and procedural due process which consists of the two basic rihts of notice and hearin,as well as the uarantee of bein heard b! an i"partial and co"petent tribunal ;Cru@,Constitutional (aw, 1227 Ed., pp. 19?19*


44/146

to deliver the fuitive to the de"andin state. The E6tradition Clause and the i"ple"entinstatute are iven a liberal construction to carr! out their "anifest purpose, which is to effect thereturn as swiftl! as possible of persons for trial to the state in which the! have been chared withcri"e ;71AA" Jurd 803?800


45/146

7. A jude or "aistrate jude is authori@ed to issue a warrant for the arrest of theprospective e6traditee ;1+ '.#.C. 71+3owever, a person facin

e6tradition "a! present whatever infor"ation he dee"s relevant to the #ecretar! of #tate,who "a-es the final deter"ination whether to surrender an individual to the foreinovern"ent concerned.

/ro" the foreoin, it "a! be observed that in the 'nited #tates, e6tradition beins and endswith one entit! H the epart"ent of #tate H which has the power to evaluate the reuest andthe e6tradition docu"ents in the beinnin, and, in the person of the #ecretar! of #tate, thepower to act or not to act on the court%s deter"ination of e6traditabilit!. &n the Philippine settin,it is the epart"ent of /orein Affairs which should "a-e the initial evaluation of the reuest,and havin satisfied itself on the points earlier "entioned ;seepp. 19?1ee"phasi@es that petitioner%s pri"ar! concern is the possible dela! in the evaluation process.


46/146

5e aree with private respondent%s citation of an A"erican #upre"e Court rulin=

The establish"ent of pro"pt efficacious procedures to achieve leiti"ate state ends is aproper state interest worth! of coni@ance in constitutional adjudication.#ut theConstitution recognizes higher $alues than speed and efficiency. &ndeed, one "iht fairl!

sa! of the Bill of Rihts in eneral, and the ue Process Clause, in particular, that the!were designed to protect the fragile $alues of a $ulnerable citizenry fro" the o$erbearingconcern for efficiency and efficacy that "ay characterize praise-orthy go$ern"entofficials no less, and perhaps "ore, than "ediocre ones.

;#tanle! vs. &llinois, 393 '.#. *30, *0*owever, if the person invo-in the riht isthe one directl! affected thereb!, his riht to infor"ation beco"es absolute.

The concept of "atters of public concerns escapes e6act definition. #trictl! spea-in, ever! actof a public officer in the conduct of the overn"ental process is a "atter of public concern;Bernas, The 12+8 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 122* ed., p. 77*


49/146

/irst and fore"ost, let us cateoricall! sa! that this is not the proper ti"e to pass upon theconstitutionalit! of the provisions of the RP?'# E6tradition Treat! nor the E6tradition (awi"ple"entin the sa"e. 5e li"it ourselves onl! to the effect of the rant of the basic rihts ofnotice and hearin to private respondent on forein relations.

The rule ofpacta sunt ser$anda, one of the oldest and "ost funda"ental "a6i"s of internationallaw, reuires the parties to a treat! to -eep their aree"ent therein in ood faith. The observanceof our countr!%s leal duties under a treat! is also co"pelled b! #ection , Article && of theConstitution which provides that :tDhe Philippines renounces war as an instru"ent of nationalpolic!, adopts the enerall! accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land,and adheres to the polic! of peace, eualit!, justice, freedo", cooperation and a"it! withnations.: 'nder the doctrine of incorporation, rules of international law for" part of the law ofthe and land no further leislative action is needed to "a-e such rules applicable in the do"esticsphere ;#alona O ap, Public &nternational (aw, 122 ed., p. 1


50/146

Petitioner interprets this silence as unavailabilit! of these rihts. Conseuentl!, he describes theevaluation procedure as an :e3 partetechnical assess"ent: of the sufficienc! of the e6traditionreuest and the supportin docu"ents.

5e disaree.

&n the absence of a law or principle of law, we "ust appl! the rules of fair pla!. An application ofthe basic twin due process rihts of notice and hearin will not o aainst the treat! or thei"ple"entin law. Neither the Treat! nor the E6tradition (aw precludes these rihts fro" aprospective e6traditee. #i"ilarl!, A"erican jurisprudence and procedures on e6tradition pose noproscription. &n fact, in interstate e6tradition proceedins as e6plained above, the prospectivee6traditee "a! even reuest for copies of the e6tradition docu"ents fro" the overnor of theas!lu" state, and if he does, his riht to be supplied the sa"e beco"es a de"andable riht ;70C.$.#. 319


51/146

i"paired even when the privilee of the writ of habeas corpusis suspended. . .: Can petitionervalidl! arue that since these contraventions are b! virtue of a treat! and hence affectin foreinrelations, the aforestated uarantees in the Bill of Rihts could thus be subservient theretoK

The basic principles of ad"inistrative law instruct us that :the essence of due process in

ad"inistrative proceedin is an opportunit! to e6plain one%s side or an opportunit! to see-reconsideration of the actions or rulin co"plained of ;Mirano vs. N(RC, 89 #CRA 2* 1228DPadilla vs. N(RC, 87 #CRA 308 1228D P(T vs. N(RC, 8* #CRA 1 1228D >elp"ate, &nc.vs. N(RC, 8* #CRA 710 1228D Auinas #chool vs. Mana!e, 8+ #CRA *9 1228D $a"ervs. N(RC, 8+ #CRA *7 1228D


52/146

&n the case at bar, private respondent does not onl! face a clear and present daner of loss ofpropert! or e"plo!"ent, but of libert! itself, which "a! eventuall! lead to his forciblebanish"ent to a forein land. The converence of petitioner%s favorable action on the e6traditionreuest and the deprivation of private respondent%s libert! is easil! co"prehensible.

5e have ruled ti"e and aain that this Court%s euit! jurisdiction, which is aptl! described as:justice outside lealit!,: "a! be availed of onl! in the absence of, and never aainst, statutor!law or judicial pronounce"ents ;#"ith Bell O Co., &nc. vs. Court of Appeals, *8 #CRA 0791228D avid?Chan vs. Court of Appeals, *+ #CRA *88 1228DERE/4RE, in view of the foreoin pre"ises, the instant petition is hereb! M#E forlac- of "erit. Petitioner is ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the e6tradition reuestand its supportin papers, and to rant hi" a reasonable period within which to file his co""entwith supportin evidence. The incidents in Civil Case No. 22?23*+3 havin been rendered "ootand acade"ic b! this decision, the sa"e is hereb! ordered dis"issed.

#4 4RERE.

#ellosillo, !urisi"a, #uena and /e Leon, Jr., JJ., concur./a$ide, Jr., C.J., & =oin Mr. Justice !uno in his dissent.!uno, J., please see dissent.>itug, J., see separate opinion.4apunan, J., see separate concurring opinion.!anganiban, J., please see "y dissenting opinion.Mendoza, J., & =oin the dissents of !uno and !anganiban, JJ.?uisu"bing, J., -ith concurring opinion.!ardo, J., & =oin J. !uno @ J. !anganiban.Gonzaga)Reyes, J., & =oin the dissent of Justices !uno @ !anganiban.nares)Santiago, J., please see separate concurring opinion.

S$%&'&($ O%)*)o*+

ITUG,J.,separate opinion


53/146

The onl! real issue before the Court, & would ta-e it, is whether or not private respondent canvalidl! as- for copies of pertinent docu"ents while the application for e6tradition aainst hi" isstill underoin process b! the E6ecutive epart"ent.

There is, & aree with the "ajorit!, a riht of access to such e6tradition docu"ents confor"abl!

with the provisions of Article &&&, #ection 8, of the Philippine Constitution.1

The constitutionalriht to free access to infor"ation of public concern is circu"scribed onl! b! the fact that thedesired infor"ation is not a"on the species e6e"pted b! law fro" the operation of theconstitutional uarant! and that the e6ercise of the riht confor"s with such reasonableconditions as "a! be prescribed b! law.

There is no hornboo- rule to deter"ine whether or not an infor"ation is of public concern. Theter" :public concern: eludes e6actitude, and it can easil! e"brace a broad spectru" of "atterswhich the public "a! want to -now either because the subject thereof can affect their lives orsi"pl! because it arouses concern.

& a" not convinced that there is so"ethin so viciousl! wron with, as to den!, the reuest ofprivate respondent to be furnished with copies of the e6tradition docu"ents.

& add. The constitutional riht to due process secures to ever!one an opportunit! to be heard,presupposin fore-nowlede of what he "a! be up aainst, and to sub"it an! evidence that he"a! wish to proffer in an effort to clear hi"self. This riht is two?proned H substantive andprocedural due process H founded, in the first instance, on Constitutional or statutor!provisions, and in the second instance, on accepted rules of procedure.7#ubstantive due processloo-s into the e6trinsic and intrinsic validit! of the law that fiures to interfere with the riht of aperson to his life, libert! and propert!. Procedural due process H the "ore litiated of the two Hfocuses on the rules that are established in order to ensure "eaninful adjudication in the

enforce"ent and i"ple"entation of the law. (i-e :public concern,: the ter" due process doesnot ad"it of an! restrictive definition. $ustice /ran-furter has viewed this fle6ible concept, aptl!& believe, as bein :. . . co"pounded b! histor!, reason, the past course of decisions, and stoutconfidence in the de"ocratic faith.:3The fra"ers of our own Constitution, it would see", havedeliberatel! intended, to "a-e it "alleable to the ever?chanin "ilieu of societ!. >itherto, it isd!na"ic and resilient, adaptable to ever! situation callin for its application that "a-es itappropriate to accept an enlared concept of the ter" as and when there is a possibilit! that theriht of an individual to life, libert! and propert! "iht be diffused.0eril!, whenever there is ani""inent threat to the life, liberty or property of any person in an! proceedin conducted b! orunder the auspices of the #tate, his riht to due process of law, when de"anded, "ust not beinored.

A daner to the libert! of the e6traditee, the private respondent, is real. Article 2 of theE6tradition Treat! between the )overn"ent of the Republic of the Philippines and the)overn"ent of the 'nited #tates of A"erica provides that in case of urenc!, a ContractinPart! "a! reuest the provisional arrest of the personprior to the presentation of the re0uest fore3tradition. & see i"plicit in this provision that even after the reuest for e6tradition is "ade andbefore a petition for e6tradition is filed with the courts, the possibilit! of an arrest bein "ade on
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt1


54/146

the basis of a "ere evaluation b! the E6ecutive on the reuest for e6tradition b! the forein #tatecannot totall! be discounted.

The conclusion reached b! the "ajorit!, & hasten to add, does not "ean that the E6ecutiveepart"ent should be i"peded in its evaluation of the e6tradition reuest. The riht of the

e6traditee to be furnished, upon reuest, with a cop! of the relevant docu"ents and to file hisco""ent thereon is not necessaril! anathe"a to the proceedins dul! "andated b! the treat! tobe "ade.

& vote to den! the petition.

=/PUN/N,J.,separate concurrin opinion

& vote to dis"iss the petition, both on technical and substantial rounds.

The petition in the case at bar raises one and onl! issue, which is the validit! of the Te"porar!Restrainin 4rder ;TR4< issued b! respondent $ude Ralph C. (antion on Auust 2, 1222 inCivil Case No. 22?23*+3. The TR4 directed respondents in said case to=

. . . "aintain thestatus 0uob! refrainin fro" co""ittin the acts co"plained of fro"conductin further proceedins in connection with the reuest of the 'nited #tates)overn"ent for the e6tradition of the petitioner fro" filin the correspondin Petitionwith the Reional Trial Court and fro" perfor"in an! act directed to the e6tradition ofthe petitioner to the 'nited #tates,for a period of t-enty days fro" the ser$ice onrespondents of this rder, pursuant to #ection 0, Rule 0+ of the 1228 Rules of Court.1

;E"phasis ours.e has the riht to sub"it controvertin evidence.The prosecutin official who conducts the preli"inar! investiation is reuired to be neutral,objective, and i"partial in resolvin the issue of probable cause. & see no reason wh! the sa"erihts "a! not be accorded a person souht to be e6tradited at the stae where the epart"ent of$ustice evaluates whether a petition for e6tradition would be filed before a reional trial court. &fdenied such rihts, not onl! denial of due process rihts but of eual protection "a! be raised.

&t is suested that after a petition for e6tradition is filed with a reional trial court, the personsouht to be e6tradited "a! e6ercise all due process rihts. >e "a! then have access to all therecords on the basis of which the reuest for e6tradition has been "ade. >e "a! controvert thatevidence and raise all defenses he "a! consider appropriate. That, it is ured, "eets the due

process reuire"ent.

But wh! "ust he wait until the petition for e6tradition is filedK As succinctl! e6pressed, if theriht to notice and hearin is to serve its full purpose, then, it is clear that it "ust be ranted at ati"e when the deprivation can still be prevented.3(i-e the filin of an infor"ation in a cri"inalcase, the "ere filin of a petition for e6tradition causes i""ediate i"pair"ent of the libert! ofthe person souht to be e6tradited and a substantial curtail"ent of other rihts. >is arrest "a! bei""ediatel! ordered b! the reional trial court. >e would be co"pelled to face an open andpublic trial. >e will be constrained to see- the assistance of counsel and incur other e6penses oflitiation. The public e!e would be directed at hi" with all the conco"itant intrusions to his rihtto privac!. 5here the libert! of a person is at ris-, and e6tradition stri-es at the ver! core of

libert!, invocation of due process rihts can never be too earl!.

UISUMBING,J.,concurrin opinion

As & concur in the result reached b! theponenciaof $ustice Melo, "a! & just add "! "odestobservations.

The hu"an rihts of person, whether citi@en or alien, and the rihts of the accused uaranteed inour Constitution should ta-e precedence over treat! rihts clai"ed b! a contractin state. #tated

otherwise, the constitutionall! "andated duties of our overn"ent to the individual deservepreferential consideration when the! collide with its treat! obliations to the overn"ent ofanother state. This is so althouh we reconi@e treaties as a source of bindin obliations underenerall! accepted principles of international law incorporated in our Constitution as part of thelaw of the land.

/or this pri"ordial reason, & vote to EN the petition.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt4


57/146

Moreover, considerin that the E6tradition Treat! between the '#A and Philippines appears"ute on the specific issue before us, the Court H in the e6ercise of its judicial power to find andstate what the law is H has this rare opportunit! of settin a precedent that enhances respect forhu"an rihts and strenthens due process of law.

As both "ajorit! and dissentin colleaues in the Court will reconi@e, A"erican authoritiesfollow two trac-s in e6tradition proceedins= ;1< the interstate practice where, pursuant to statute,the state E6ecutive upon de"and furnishes the would be e6traditee or counsel copies of pertinentdocu"ents as well as the reuest for e6tradition and ;< the international practice where theE6ecutive depart"ent need not initiall! rant notice and hearin at all. Rules of reciprocit! andco"it!, however, should not bar us fro" appl!in internationall! now what appears the "orereasonable and hu"ane procedure, that is, the interstate practice a"on A"ericans the"selves./or in this case the A"erican people should be a"on the "ost interested parties.

Trul!, what private respondent is as-in our E6ecutive depart"ent ;notice, copies of docu"ents,and the opportunit! to protect hi"self at the earliest ti"e aainst probable peril< does not, in "!

view, violate our E6tradition Treat! with the '#A. >is reuest if ranted auurs well fortransparenc! in interstate or interovern"ental relations rather than secrec! which s"ac-s of"edieval diplo"ac! and the inuisition discredited lon ao.

That private respondent is a /ilipino citi@en is not decisive of the issue here, althouh it isobviousl! pertinent. Even if he were a resident alien ;other than A"erican perhaps


58/146

>owever, & a" constrained to write this short concurrence if onl! to pose the uestion of wh!there should be an! debate at all on a plea for protection of one%s libert! which, if ranted, willnot result in an! "eaninful i"pedi"ent of thwartin an! state polic! and objectives.

& see no reason wh! respondent Mar- $i"ene@, or other citi@ens not as controversial or tal-ed

about, should first be e6posed to the indinit!, e6pense, and an6iet! of a public denunciation incourt before he "a! be infor"ed of what the contractin states in an e6tradition treat! haveaainst hi". There is no uestion that ever!thin which respondent $i"ene@ now reuests will beiven to hi" durin trial. Mr. $i"ene@ is onl! petitionin that, at this stage, he should beinfor"ed wh! he "a! be deported fro" his o-ncountr!.

& see no ill effects which would arise if the e6tradition reuest and supportin docu"ents areshown to hi" now, instead of later.

Petitioner #ecretar! of $ustice states that his action on the e6tradition reuest and its supportindocu"ents will "erel! deter"ine whether or not the Philippines is co"pl!in with its treat!

obliations. >e adds that, therefore, the constitutional rihts of an accused in all cri"inalprosecutions are not available to the private respondent.

The $ul! 17, 1222 repl!?letter fro" petitioner states the reasons wh! he is den!in respondent$i"ene@%s reuests. &n short, the reasons are=

1. &n evaluatin the docu"ents, the epart"ent "erel! deter"ines whether theprocedures and reuire"ents under the relevant law and treat! have been co"plied withb! the Reuestin )overn"ent. The constitutional rihts of the accused in all cri"inalprosecutions are, therefore, not available.

. The 'nited #tates )overn"ent has reuested the Philippine )overn"ent to preventunauthori@ed disclosure of certain rand jur! infor"ation.

7. The petitioner cannot hold in abe!ance proceedins in connection with an e6traditionreuest. /or e6tradition to be an effective tool of cri"inal law enforce"ent, reuests forsurrender of accused or convicted persons "ust be processed e6peditiousl!.

& respectfull! sub"it that an! apprehensions in the Court arisin fro" a denial of the petition H:breach of an international obliation, rupture of states relations, forfeiture of confidence,national e"barrass"ent, and a plethora of other euall! undesirable conseuences: H are "oreillusor! than real. 4ur countr! is not den!in the e6tradition of a person who "ust be e6tradited.

Not one provision of the e6tradition treat! is violated. & cannot i"aine the 'nited #tates ta-inissue over what, to it, would be a "inor concession, perhaps a sliht dela!, accorded in the na"eof hu"an rihts. 4n the other hand, the issue is funda"ental in the Philippines. A citi@en isinvo-in the protection, in the conte6t of a treat! obliation, of rihts e6pressl! uaranteed b!the Philippine Constitution.

'ntil proved to be a valid subject for e6tradition, a person is presu"ed innocent or not coveredb! the sanctions of either cri"inal law or international treat!. At an! stae where a still


59/146

prospective e6traditee onl! see-s to -now so that he can prepare and prove that he should not bee6tradited, there should be no conflict over the e6tension to hi" of constitutional protectionsuaranteed to aliens and citi@ens ali-e.

Petitioner cites as a reason for the denial of respondent%s reuests, Article 8 of the Treat!. Article

8 enu"erates the reuired docu"ents and establishes the procedures under which the docu"entsshall be sub"itted and ad"itted as evidence. There is no specific provision on how that #ecretar!of /orein Affairs should conduct his evaluation. The #ecretar! of $ustice is not even in thepicture at this stae. 'nder petitioner%s theor!, silence in the treat! over a citi@en%s rihts durinthe evaluation stae is interpreted as deliberate e6clusion b! the contractin states of the riht to-now. #ilence is interpreted as the e6clusion of the riht to a preli"inar! e6a"ination orpreli"inar! investiation provided b! the laws of either one of the two states.

The riht to be infor"ed of chares which "a! lead to court proceedins and result in adeprivation of libert! is ordinaril! routine. &t is readil! available to one aainst who" the state%scoercive power has alread! been focused. & fail to see how silence can be interpreted as

e6clusion. The treat! is silent because at this stae, the preli"inar! procedure is still an internal"atter. And when a law or treat! is silent, it "eans a riht or privilee "a! be ranted. &t is notthe other wa! around.

The second reason allein the need for secrec! and confidentialit! is even less convincin. Thee6planation of petitioner is self?contradictor!. 4n one hand, petitioner asserts that the 'nited#tates )overn"ent reuested the Philippine )overn"ent to prevent unauthori@ed disclosure ofcertain infor"ation. 4n the other hand, petitioner declares that the 'nited #tates has alread!secured orders fro" concerned istrict Courts authori@in the disclosure of the sa"e rand jur!infor"ation to the Philippine )overn"ent and its law enforce"ent personnel.

4fficial per"ission has been iven. The 'nited #tates has no cause to co"plain about thedisclosure of infor"ation furnished to the Philippines.

Moreover, how can rand jur! infor"ation and docu"ents be considered confidential if the! areoin to be introduced as evidence in adversel! proceedins before a trial courtK The onl! issueis whether or not Mr. $i"ene@ should be e6tradited. >is innocence or uilt of an! cri"e will bedeter"ined in an A"erican court. &t is there where prosecution strateies will be essential. &f theContractin #tates believed in a total non?divulin of infor"ation prior to court hearins, the!would have so provided in the e6tradition treat!. A positive provision "a-in certain rihtsunavailable cannot be i"plied fro" silence.

& cannot believe that the 'nited #tates and the Philippines with identical constitutional provisionson due process and basic rihts should sustain such a "!opic view in a situation where the rantof a riht would not result in an! serious setbac-s to cri"inal law enforce"ent.

&t is obvious that an! prospective e6traditee wants to -now if his identit! as the person indicatedhas

Documents

Jurisprudence for Public International Law