SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

CONCURRING OPINION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

I concur in the ponencia of Mr. Justice Jose A.R. Melo with its conceptive analysis of a citizens right to be given what is due to him. I join in his exposition of this Courts constitutional duty to strike the correct balance between overwhelming Government power and the protection of individual rights where only one person is involved.

However, I am constrained to write this short concurrence if only to pose the question of why there should be any debate at all on a plea for protection of ones liberty which, if granted, will not result in any meaningful impediment of thwarting any state policy and objectives.

I see no reason why respondent Mark Jimenez, or other citizens not as controversial or talked about, should first be exposed to the indignity, expense, and anxiety of a public denunciation in court before he may be informed of what the contracting states in an extradition treaty have against him. There is no question that everything which respondent Jimenez now requests will be given to him during trial. Mr. Jimenez is only petitioning that, at this stage, he should be informed why he may be deported from his own country. S djad

I see no ill effects which would arise if the extradition request and supporting documents are shown to him now, instead of later.

Petitioner Secretary of Justice states that his action on the extradition request and its supporting documents will merely determine whether or not the Philippines is complying with its treaty obligations. He adds that, therefore, the constitutional rights of an accused in all criminal prosecutions are not available to the private respondent.

The July 13, 1999 reply-letter from petitioner states the reasons why he is denying respondent Jimenezs requests. In short, the reasons are:

1. In evaluating the documents, the Department merely determines whether the procedures and requirements under the relevant law and treaty have been complied with by the Requesting Government. The constitutional rights of the accused in all criminal prosecutions are, therefore, not available.

2. The United States Government has requested the Philippine Government to prevent unauthorized disclosure of certain grand jury information.

3. The petitioner cannot hold in abeyance proceedings in connection with an extradition request. For extradition to be an effective tool of criminal law enforcement, requests for surrender of accused or convicted persons must be processed expeditiously. act

I respectfully submit that any apprehensions in the Court arising from a denial of the petition - "breach of an international obligation, rupture of state relations, forfeiture of confidence, national embarrassment, and a plethora of other equally undesirable consequences" - are more illusory than real. Our country is not denying the extradition of a person who must be extradited. Not one provision of the extradition treaty is violated. I cannot imagine the United States taking issue over what, to it, would be a minor concession, perhaps a slight delay, accorded in the name of human rights. On the other hand, the issue is fundamental in the Philippines. A citizen is invoking the protection, in the context of a treaty obligation, of rights expressly guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution.

Until proved to be a valid subject for extradition, a person is presumed innocent or not covered by the sanctions of either criminal law or international treaty. At any stage where a still prospective extraditee only seeks to know so that he can prepare and prove that he should not be extradited, there should be no conflict over the extension to him of constitutional protections guaranteed to aliens and citizens alike.

Petitioner cites as a reason for the denial of respondents requests, Article 7 of the Treaty. Article 7 enumerates the required documents and establishes the procedures under which the documents shall be submitted and admitted as evidence. There is no specific provision on how the Secretary of Foreign Affairs should conduct his evaluation. The Secretary of Justice is not even in the picture at this stage. Under petitioners theory, silence in the treaty over a citizens rights during the evaluation stage is interpreted as deliberate exclusion by the contracting states of the right to know. Silence is interpreted as the exclusion of the right to a preliminary examination or preliminary investigation provided by the laws of either one of the two states. Acct mis

The right to be informed of charges which may lead to court proceedings and result in a deprivation of liberty is ordinarily routine. It is readily available to one against whom the states coercive power has already been focused. I fail to see how silence can be interpreted as exclusion. The treaty is silent because at this stage, the preliminary procedure is still an internal matter. And when a law or treaty is silent, it means a right or privilege may be granted. It is not the other way around.

The second reason alleging the need for secrecy and confidentiality is even less convincing. The explanation of petitioner is self-contradictory. On one hand, petitioner asserts that the United States Government requested the Philippine Government to prevent unauthorized disclosure of certain information. On the other hand, petitioner declares that the United States has already secured orders from concerned District Courts authorizing the disclosure of the same grand jury information to the Philippine Government and its law enforcement personnel.

Official permission has been given. The United States has no cause to complain about the disclosure of information furnished to the Philippines.

Moreover, how can grand jury information and documents be considered confidential if they are going to be introduced as evidence in adversary proceedings before a trial court? The only issue is whether or not Mr. Jimenez should be extradited. His innocence or guilt of any crime will be determined in an American court. It is there where prosecution strategies will be essential. If the Contracting States believed in a total non-divulging of information prior to court hearings, they would have so provided in the extradition treaty. A positive provision making certain rights unavailable cannot be implied from silence.

I cannot believe that the United States and the Philippines with identical constitutional provisions on due process and basic rights should sustain such a myopic view in a situation where the grant of a right would not result in any serious setbacks to criminal law enforcement.

It is obvious that any prospective extraditee wants to know if his identity as the person indicated has been established. Considering the penchant of Asians to adopt American names when in America, the issue of whether or not the prospective extraditee truly is the person charged in the United States becomes a valid question. It is not only identity of the person which is involved. The crimes must also be unmistakably identified and their essential elements clearly stated.

There are other preliminary matters in which respondent is interested. I see nothing in our laws or in the Treaty which prohibits the prospective extraditee from knowing until after the start of trial whether or not the extradition treaty applies to him.

Paraphrasing Hashim vs. Boncan, 71 Phil. 216; Trocio vs. Manta, 118 SCRA 241 (1941); and Salonga vs. Hon. Pao, 134 SCRA 438 (1985), the purpose of a preliminary evaluation is to secure an innocent person against hasty, faulty and, therefore, oppressive proceedings; to protect him from an open and extensively publicized accusation of crimes; to spare him the trouble, expense, and anxiety of a public trial; and also to protect the state from useless and expensive trials. Even if the purpose is only to determine whether or not the respondent is a proper subject for extradition, he is nonetheless entitled to the guarantees of fairness and freedom accorded to those charged with ordinary crimes in the Philippines.

The third reason given by petitioner is the avoidance of delay. Petitioner views the request to be informed as part of undesirable delaying tactics. This is most unfortunate. Any request for extradition must be viewed objectively and impartially without any predisposition to granting it and, therefore, hastening the extradition process.

In the first place, any assistance which the evaluating official may get from the participation of respondent may well point out deficiencies and insufficiencies in the extradition documents. It would incur greater delays if these are discovered only during court trial. On the other hand, if, from respondents participation, the evaluating official discovers a case of mistaken identity, insufficient pleadings, inadequate complaints, or any ruinous shortcoming, there would be no delays during trial. An unnecessary trial with all its complications would be avoided.

The right to be informed is related to the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The constitutional guarantee extends to the speedy disposition of cases before all quasi-judicial and administrative bodies (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 16). Speedy disposition, however, does not mean the deliberate exclusion of the defendant or respondent from the proceedings. As this Court ruled in Acebedo vs. Sarmiento, 36 SCRA 247 (1970), "the right to a speedy trial, means one free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, its salutary objective being to assure that an innocent person may be free from the anxiety and expense of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt (in this case, his being extradited) determined within the shortest possible time compatible with the presentation and consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he may interpose."

The right to be informed and the right to a preliminary hearing are not merely for respondent. They also serve the interests of the State.

In closing, I maintain that the paramount consideration of guaranteeing the constitutional rights of individual respondent override the concerns of petitioner. There should be no hurried or indifferent effort to routinely comply with all requests for extradition. I understand that this is truer in the United States than in other countries. Proposed extraditees are given every legal protection available from the American justice system before they are extradited. We serve under a government of limited powers and inalienable rights. Hence, this concurrence.