7. Public International Law.docx

7/26/2019 7. Public International Law.docx

1/54

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 139465 January 18, 2000

SECRETAR O! JUST"CE,petitioner,vs.#ON. RA$P# C. $ANT"ON, Pr%&'('n) Ju()%, R%)'ona* Tr'a* Cour+ oMan'*a, -ran/ 25, an( MAR -. J"MENE,respondents.

ME$O, J.:

The individual citizen is but a speck of particle or olecule vis--visthe vastand over!helin" po!ers of "overnent. #is onl$ "uarantee a"ainstoppression and t$rann$ are his fundaental liberties under the Bill of Ri"hts!hich shield hi in ties of need. The Court is no! called to decide !hetherto uphold a citizen%s basic due process ri"hts, or the "overnent%s ironcladduties under a treat$. The bu"le sounds and this Court ust once a"ain actas the faithful "uardian of the fundaental !rit.

The petition at our doorstep is cast a"ainst the follo!in" factual backdrop&

'n (anuar$ )*, )+, then President -erdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential

ecree No. )/0+ 1Prescribin" the Procedure for the E2tradition of Persons3ho #ave Coitted Cries in a -orei"n Countr$1. The ecree is foundedon& the doctrine of incorporation under the Constitution4 the utual concernfor the suppression of crie both in the state !here it !as coitted andthe state !here the criinal a$ have escaped4 the e2tradition treat$ !iththe Republic of 5ndonesia and the intention of the Philippines to enter intosiilar treaties !ith other interested countries4 and the need for rules to"uide the e2ecutive departent and the courts in the proper ipleentationof said treaties.

'n Noveber )*, )++6, then 7ecretar$ of (ustice -ranklin M. rilon,

representin" the 8overnent of the Republic of the Philippines, si"ned inManila the 1E2tradition Treat$ Bet!een the 8overnent of the Republic ofthe Philippines and the 8overnent of the 9nited 7tates of Aerica1:hereinafter referred to as the RP;97 E2tradition Treat$


2/54

diploatic or consular o@cer of the re?uested state resident in theRe?uestin" 7tate


3/54

Hater, private respondent re?uested that preliinar$, he be "iven at least acop$ of, or access to, the re?uest of the 9nited 7tates 8overnent, and afterreceivin" a cop$ of the iploatic Note, a period of tie to aplif$ on hisre?uest.

5n response to private respondent%s (ul$ ), )+++ letter, petitioner, in a repl$;letter dated (ul$ )*, )+++ :but received b$ private respondent onl$ on Au"ust6, )+++


4/54

!hich provides that the Philippine 8overnent ust represent theinterests of the 9nited 7tates in an$ proceedin"s arisin" out of are?uest for e2tradition. The epartent of (ustice under P.. No. )/0+is the counsel of the forei"n "overnents in all e2tradition re?uests.

*. This epartent is not in a position to hold in abe$ance proceedin"sin connection !ith an e2tradition re?uest. Article D0 of the iennaConvention on the Ha! of Treaties, to !hich !e are a part$ providesthat 1EFver$ treat$ in force is bindin" upon the parties to it and ustbe perfored b$ the in "ood faith1. E2tradition is a tool of criinalla! enforceent and to be eective, re?uests for e2tradition orsurrender of accused or convicted persons ust be processede2peditiousl$.

:pp. ;, Rollo.)0


15/54

The 9nited 7tates and the Philippines share a utual concern about thesuppression and punishent of crie in their respective Iurisdictions. At thesae tie, both 7tates accord coon due process protection to theirrespective citizens.

The due process clauses in the Aerican and Philippine Constitutions are notonl$ !orded in e2actl$ identical lan"ua"e and terinolo"$, but oreiportantl$, the$ are alike in !hat their respective 7upree Courts havee2pounded as the spirit !ith !hich the provisions are infored andipressed, the elasticit$ in their interpretation, their d$naic and resilientcharacter !hich ake the capable of eetin" ever$ odern proble, andtheir havin" been desi"ned fro earliest tie to the present to eet thee2i"encies of an unde=ned and e2pandin" future. The re?uireents of dueprocess are interpreted in both the 9nited 7tates and the Philippines as notden$in" to the la! the capacit$ for pro"ress and iproveent. To!ard thiseect and in order to avoid the con=nes of a le"al straitIacket, the courts

instead prefer to have the eanin" of the due process clause 1"raduall$ascertained b$ the process of inclusion and e2clusion in the course of thedecisions of cases as the$ arise1 :T!inin" vs. Ne! (erse$, D)) 9.7.


16/54

ten da$s fro receipt thereof. Moreover, the respondent shall have the ri"htto e2aine all other evidence subitted b$ the coplainant.

These t!in ri"hts a$, ho!ever, be considered dispensable in certaininstances, such as&

). 5n proceedin" !here there is an ur"ent need for iediate action,like the suar$ abateent of a nuisance(er se:Article /6, CivilCode6;>>


17/54

of the crie or that prosecution has been be"un in the deandin" statebefore soe court or a"istrate :*> C.(.7. 6/0;6/0 7.3. Dd )/*, )> Te2. Cr.6/ andE# (arteTucker, Cr., *D6, 7.3.Dd >*, )+++, he attachedthereto a letter dated 7epteber )*, )+++ fro the Criinal ivision of the9.7. epartent of (ustice, suarizin" the 9.7. e2tradition procedures andprinciples, !hich are basicall$ "overned b$ a cobination of treaties :!ith

special reference to the RP;97 E2tradition Treat$


18/54

statute that ensures adissibilit$ at an$ subse?uent e2traditionhearin".

*. A Iud"e or a"istrate Iud"e is authorized to issue a !arrant for thearrest of the prospective e2traditee :) 9.7.C. S*)6. The Iud"e or a"istrate Iud"e is vested !ith Iurisdiction to certif$e2traditabilit$ after havin" received a 1coplaint ade under oath,char"in" an$ person found !ithin his Iurisdiction1 !ith havin"coitted an$ of the cries provided for b$ the "overnin" treat$ inthe countr$ re?uestin" e2tradition :I$id.< 5n this re"ard, it is noted thata lon" line of Aerican decisions pronounce that internationale2tradition proceedin"s partake of the character of a preliinar$e2aination before a coittin" a"istrate, rather than a trial of the"uilt or innocence of the alle"ed fu"itive :*)AAm 4ur Dd D0


19/54

settin", it is the epartent of -orei"n Aairs !hich should ake the initialevaluation of the re?uest, and havin" satis=ed itself on the points earlierentioned :seepp. )/;)D, 0>0 7CRA *6*, *>;*0 )++F


21/54

the peculiarit$ and deviant characteristic of the evaluation procedure. 'none hand there is $et no e2traditee, but ironicall$ on the other, it results inan adinistrative if adverse to the person involved, a$ cause hisiediate incarceration. The "rant of the re?uest shall lead to the =lin" ofthe e2tradition petition in court. The 1accused1 :as 7ection DcF of

Presidential ecree No. )/0+ calls hi


22/54

The concept of atters of public concerns escapes e2act de=nition. 7trictl$speakin", ever$ act of a public o@cer in the conduct of the "overnentalprocess is a atter of public concern :Bernas, The )+ Constitution of theRepublic of the Philippines, )++0 ed., p. **0


23/54

-irst and foreost, let us cate"oricall$ sa$ that this is not the proper tie topass upon the constitutionalit$ of the provisions of the RP;97 E2traditionTreat$ nor the E2tradition Ha! ipleentin" the sae. 3e liit ourselvesonl$ to the eect of the "rant of the basic ri"hts of notice and hearin" toprivate respondent on forei"n relations.

The rule of(acta sunt servanda, one of the oldest and ost fundaentala2is of international la!, re?uires the parties to a treat$ to keep theira"reeent therein in "ood faith. The observance of our countr$%s le"al dutiesunder a treat$ is also copelled b$ 7ection D, Article 55 of the Constitution!hich provides that 1tFhe Philippines renounces !ar as an instruent ofnational polic$, adopts the "enerall$ accepted principles of international la!as part of the la! of the land, and adheres to the polic$ of peace, e?ualit$,Iustice, freedo, cooperation and ait$ !ith nations.1 9nder the doctrine ofincorporation, rules of international la! for part of the la! of the and landno further le"islative action is needed to ake such rules applicable in the

doestic sphere :7alon"a ap, Public 5nternational Ha!, )++D ed., p. )D> )+>F4 8onzales vs. #echanova, + 7CRA D*/ )+0*F4 5n re& 8arcia,D 7CRA +6 )+0)F< for the reason that such courts are or"ans of unicipalla! and are accordin"l$ bound b$ it in all circustances :7alon"a ap, o(. cit., p. )*


24/54

the land are not pined a"ainst each other. There is no occasion to choose!hich of the t!o should be upheld. 5nstead, !e see a void in the provisions ofthe RP;97 E2tradition Treat$, as ipleented b$ Presidential ecree No.)/0+, as re"ards the basic due process ri"hts of a prospective e2traditee atthe evaluation sta"e of e2tradition proceedin"s. -ro the procedures earlier

abstracted, after the =lin" of the e2tradition petition and durin" the Iudicialdeterination of the propriet$ of e2tradition, the ri"hts of notice and hearin"are clearl$ "ranted to the prospective e2traditee. #o!ever, prior thereto, thela! is silent as to these ri"hts. Reference to the 9.7. e2tradition proceduresalso anifests this silence.

Petitioner interprets this silence as unavailabilit$ of these ri"hts.Conse?uentl$, he describes the evaluation procedure as an 1e#(artetechnical assessent1 of the su@cienc$ of the e2tradition re?uest andthe supportin" docuents.

3e disa"ree.

5n the absence of a la! or principle of la!, !e ust appl$ the rules of fairpla$. An application of the basic t!in due process ri"hts of notice and hearin"!ill not "o a"ainst the treat$ or the ipleentin" la!. Neither the Treat$ northe E2tradition Ha! precludes these ri"hts fro a prospective e2traditee.7iilarl$, Aerican Iurisprudence and procedures on e2tradition pose noproscription. 5n fact, in interstate e2tradition proceedin"s as e2plainedabove, the prospective e2traditee a$ even re?uest for copies of thee2tradition docuents fro the "overnor of the as$lu state, and if he does,his ri"ht to be supplied the sae becoes a deandable ri"ht :*> C.(.7.

6)/


25/54

proceedin"s. 3e have to consider siilar situations in Iurisprudence for anapplication b$ analo"$.

Earlier, !e stated that there are siilarities bet!een the evaluation processand a preliinar$ investi"ation since both procedures a$ result in the

arrest of the respondent or the prospective e2traditee. 5n the evaluationprocess, a provisional arrest is even allo!ed b$ the Treat$ and the E2traditionHa! :Article +, RP;97 E2tradition Treat$4 7ec. D/, Presidential ecree No.)/0+


26/54

'f analo"ous application are the rulin"s in 8overnment Service InsuranceS5stem vs. Court o) A((eals:D/) 7CRA 00) )++)F< and 8o vs. National%olice Commission:D) 7CRA 66 )++F< !here !e ruled that in suar$proceedin"s under Presidential ecree No. / :Providin" for the'r"anization of the Civil 7ervice Coission in Accordance !ith Provisions of

the Constitution, Prescribin" its Po!ers and -unctions and for 'therPurposes


27/54

respondent%s due process ri"hts, althou"h not "uaranteed b$ statute or b$treat$, are protected b$ constitutional "uarantees. 3e !ould not be true tothe or"anic la! of the land if !e choose strict construction over "uaranteesa"ainst the deprivation of libert$. That !ould not be in keepin" !ith theprinciples of deocrac$ on !hich our Constitution is preised.

eril$, as one traverses treacherous !aters of conQictin" and opposin"currents of libert$ and "overnent authorit$, he ust ever hold the oar offreedo in the stron"er ar, lest an errant and !a$!ard course be laid.

3#ERE-'RE, in vie! of the fore"oin" preises, the instant petition is hereb$57M577E for lack of erit. Petitioner is ordered to furnish privaterespondent copies of the e2tradition re?uest and its supportin" papers, andto "rant hi a reasonable period !ithin !hich to =le his coent !ithsupportin" evidence. The incidents in Civil Case No. ++;+606 havin" beenrendered oot and acadeic b$ this decision, the sae is hereb$ ordered

disissed.

7' 'RERE.

0ellosillo, %urisima, 0uena and De 9eon, 4r, 44, concurDavide, 4r, C4, I 7oin Mr 4ustice %uno in "is dissent%uno, 4, (lease see dissent:itu', 4, see se(arate o(inion1a(unan, 4, see se(arate concurrin' o(inion%an'ani$an, 4, (lease see m5 dissentin' o(inionMendo2a, 4, I 7oin t"e dissents o) %uno and %an'ani$an, 44

;uisum$in', 4, it" concurrin' o(inion%ardo, 4, I 7oin 4 %uno < 4 %an'ani$an8on2a'a-Re5es, 4, I 7oin t"e dissent o) 4ustices %uno < %an'ani$an=nares-Santia'o, 4, (lease see se(arate concurrin' o(inion

S%ara+% O'n'on&

"TUG,4,separate opinion4

The onl$ real issue before the Court, 5 !ould take it, is !hether or not privaterespondent can validl$ ask for copies of pertinent docuents !hile theapplication for e2tradition a"ainst hi is still under"oin" process b$ theE2ecutive epartent.

There is, 5 a"ree !ith the aIorit$, a ri"ht of access to such e2traditiondocuents conforabl$ !ith the provisions of Article 555, 7ection , of the


28/54

Philippine Constitution.)The constitutional ri"ht to free access to inforationof public concern is circuscribed onl$ b$ the fact that the desiredinforation is not aon" the species e2epted b$ la! fro the operation ofthe constitutional "uarant$ and that the e2ercise of the ri"ht confors !ithsuch reasonable conditions as a$ be prescribed b$ la!.

There is no hornbook rule to deterine !hether or not an inforation is ofpublic concern. The ter 1public concern1 eludes e2actitude, and it caneasil$ ebrace a broad spectru of atters !hich the public a$ !ant tokno! either because the subIect thereof can aect their lives or sipl$because it arouses concern.D

5 a not convinced that there is soethin" so viciousl$ !ron" !ith, as toden$, the re?uest of private respondent to be furnished !ith copies of thee2tradition docuents.

5 add. The constitutional ri"ht to due process secures to ever$one anopportunit$ to be heard, presupposin" forekno!led"e of !hat he a$ be upa"ainst, and to subit an$ evidence that he a$ !ish to proer in an eortto clear hiself. This ri"ht is t!o;pron"ed G substantive and procedural dueprocess G founded, in the =rst instance, on Constitutional or statutor$provisions, and in the second instance, on accepted rules ofprocedure.*7ubstantive due process looks into the e2trinsic and intrinsicvalidit$ of the la! that ="ures to interfere !ith the ri"ht of a person to hislife, libert$ and propert$. Procedural due process G the ore liti"ated of thet!o G focuses on the rules that are established in order to ensureeanin"ful adIudication in the enforceent and ipleentation of the la!.

Hike 1public concern,1 the ter due process does not adit of an$ restrictivede=nition. (ustice -rankfurter has vie!ed this Qe2ible concept, aptl$ 5 believe,as bein" 1. . . copounded b$ histor$, reason, the past course of decisions,and stout con=dence in the deocratic faith.16The fraers of our o!nConstitution, it !ould see, have deliberatel$ intended, to ake it alleableto the ever;chan"in" ilieu of societ$. #itherto, it is d$naic and resilient,adaptable to ever$ situation callin" for its application that akes itappropriate to accept an enlar"ed concept of the ter as and !hen there isa possibilit$ that the ri"ht of an individual to life, libert$ and propert$ i"htbe diused.>eril$, !henever there is an imminent t"reat to t"e li)e, li$ert5or (ro(ert5 o) an5 (erson in an$ proceedin" conducted b$ or under the

auspices of the 7tate, his ri"ht to due process of la!, !hen deanded, ustnot be i"nored.

A dan"er to the libert$ of the e2traditee, the private respondent, is real.Article + of the E2tradition Treat$ bet!een the 8overnent of the Republic ofthe Philippines and the 8overnent of the 9nited 7tates of Aerica providesthat in case of ur"enc$, a Contractin" Part$ a$ re?uest the provisionalarrest of the person(rior to t"e (resentation o) t"e request )or e#tradition. 5
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#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


29/54

see iplicit in this provision that even after the re?uest for e2tradition isade and before a petition for e2tradition is =led !ith the courts, thepossibilit$ of an arrest bein" ade on the basis of a ere evaluation b$ theE2ecutive on the re?uest for e2tradition b$ the forei"n 7tate cannot totall$be discounted.

The conclusion reached b$ the aIorit$, 5 hasten to add, does not ean thatthe E2ecutive epartent should be ipeded in its evaluation of thee2tradition re?uest. The ri"ht of the e2traditee to be furnished, upon re?uest,!ith a cop$ of the relevant docuents and to =le his coent thereon is notnecessaril$ anathea to the proceedin"s dul$ andated b$ the treat$ to beade.

5 vote to den$ the petition.

APUNAN,4,separate concurrin" opinion4

5 vote to disiss the petition, both on technical and substantial "rounds.

The petition in the case at bar raises one and onl$ issue, !hich is the validit$of the Teporar$ Restrainin" 'rder :TR'< issued b$ respondent (ud"e RalphC. Hantion on Au"ust +, )+++ in Civil Case No. ++;+606. The TR' directedrespondents in said case to&

. . . aintain the status quob$ refrainin" fro coittin" the actscoplained of4 fro conductin" further proceedin"s in connection !iththe re?uest of the 9nited 7tates 8overnent for the e2tradition of thepetitioner4 fro =lin" the correspondin" Petition !ith the Re"ional TrialCourt4 and fro perforin" an$ act directed to the e2tradition of thepetitioner to the 9nited 7tates,)or a (eriod o) tent5 da5s )rom t"eservice on res(ondents o) t"is Order, pursuant to 7ection >, Rule > ofthe )++ Rules of Court.):Ephasis ours.Needless to state, a more de)erential treatments"ould $e 'iven to national interest t"an to individual interest. 'ur nationalinterest in e2traditin" persons !ho have coitted cries in a forei"n

countr$ are succinctl$ e2pressed in the !hereas clauses of P.. No. )/0+, vi2&

3#EREA7, the Constitution of the Philippines adopts the "enerall$accepted principles of international la! as part of la! of the land, andadheres to the polic$ of peace, e?ualit$, Iustice, freedo, coo(erationand amit5 it" all nations4

3#EREA7, the su((ression o) crime is the concern not onl$ of the state!here it is coitted but also of an$ other state to !hich the criinala$ have escaped, because it saps the foundation of social life and isan outra"e upon huanit$ at lar"e, and it is in t"e interest o) civili2ed

communities t"at crimes s"ould not 'o un(unis"ed. . . . .

T"e increasin' incidence o) international and transnational crimes, t"edevelo(ment o) ne tec"nolo'ies o) deat",and t"e s(eed and scale o)im(rovement o) communication are )actors "ic" "ave virtuall5 anni"ilatedtime and distance. T"e5 ma?e more com(ellin' t"e vindication o) nationalinterest to insure t"at t"e (unis"ment o) criminals s"ould not $e )rustrated$5 t"e )rontiers o) territorial soverei'nt5. T"is overridin' national interestmust $e u("eld as a'ainst res(ondent@s ea? constitutional claims "ic" inno a5 amount to denial o) )undamental )airness.

At $ottom, t"is case involves t"e res(ect t"at courts s"ould accord to t"eE#ecutive t"at concluded t"e R%-US E#tradition Treat5 in t"e conduct o) our)orei'n aairs. As earl$ as )//, the le"endar$ (ohn Marshall, then acon"ressan, has opined that the po!er to e2tradite pursuant to a treat$rests in the e2ecutive branch as part of its po!er to conduct forei"naairs.D0Courts have validated this for!ard;lookin" opinion in a catena ofunbroken cases. The$ defer to the Iud"ent of the E2ecutive on thenecessities of our forei"n aairs and on its vie! of the re?uireents of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#fnt26


47/54

international coit$. The de)erential attitude is dictated b$ the robust realit$that of the three "reat branches of our "overnent, it is t"e E#ecutive t"at ismost qualiBed to 'uide t"e s"i( o) t"e state on t"e ?non and un?noncontinents o) )orei'n relations. 5t is also copelled b$ considerations of theprinciple of se(aration o) (oers for the Constitution has clearl$ allocated

the po!er to conduct our forei"n aairs to the E2ecutive. I res(ect)ull5su$mit t"at t"e ma7orit5 decision "as ea?ened t"e E#ecutive $5 alloin'not"in' less t"an an unconstitutional "ead$utt on t"e (oer o) t"e E#ecutiveto conduct our )orei'n aairs. T"e ma7orit5 s"ould $e cautions in involvin't"is Court in t"e conduct o) t"e nation@s )orei'n relations "ere t"einviola$le rule dictated $5 necessit5 is t"at t"e nation s"ould s(ea? it" onevoice.3e s"ould not overloo? t"e realit5 t"at courts $5 t"eir nature, are ill-equi((ed to )ull5 com(re"end t"e )orei'n (olic5 dimension o) a treat5, someo) "ic" are "idden in s"ados and sil"ouettes.

I vote to 'rant t"e (etition.

PANGAN"-AN,4,dissentin" opinion4

3ith due respect, 5 dissent.

The ain issue before us is !hether Private Respondent Mark B. (ienez isentitled to the due process ri"hts of notice and hearin" durin" thepreliinar$ or evaluation sta"e of the e2tradition proceedin" a"ainst hi.

To Sta'ed in E#tradition

There are essentiall$ t!o sta"es in e2tradition proceedin"s& :)< thepreliinar$ or evaluation sta"e, !hereb$ the e2ecutive authorit$ of there?uested state ascertains !hether the e2tradition re?uest is supported b$the docuents and inforation re?uired under the E2tradition Treat$4 and :D/ 7CRA >*/4 alonte vs.

Belonte, (r., )/ 7CRA D>0.

*Ania", (r. vs. Coission on Elections, D* 7CRA 6D64 Tupas vs. Courtof Appeals, )+* 7CRA >+.

6Abraha, #enr$ (., Some 0asic 8uidelines o) 1Due %rocess o) 9a.1The Ha!$ers Revie!, ol. 5L, */ April )++>, p. ).
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt4


52/54

>Cruz, 5sa"ani A. Constitutional Ha!. )++> Ed. pp. +6;+>.

APUNAN,4,separate concurrin" opinion4

)Anne2 1H,1 petition.

DPetition, p. 6.

*Edillon vs. -ernandos, ))6 7CRA )>* :)+D


53/54

the Philippines have rati=ed or acceded to it. See 7tateent of An"elain", 7pecial Adviser to the 7ecretar$ 8eneral of the 9N on 8ender5ssues and Advanceent of 3oen, (udicial Collo?uiu on theApplication of 5nternational #uan Ri"hts Ha! at the oestic Hevel,ienna, Austria, 'ctober D, )+++.

+Blakesle$ and Ha"odn$, -indin" aron$ Aidst isa"reeent 'verE2tradition, (urisdiction, The Role of #uan Ri"hts and 5ssues ofE2traterritorialit$ 9nder 5nternational Criinal Ha!, anderbilt (ournalof Transnational Ha!, ol. D6, No. ), pp. 66 :)++)


54/54

DDReferrin" to the Re"ional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals !hosedecisions are deeed =nal and e2ecutor$. See7ection )D, P.. No.)/0+.

D*Note, E2ecutive iscretion in E2tradition, 0D Col. Ha! Rev., pp. )*)6;

)*D+.D67pencer, o( cit., citin'decided cases.

D>3eston, -alk and Aato, 5nternational Ha! and 3orld 'rder, Dnd ed.,p. 0*/ :)++/ C(7 S )6:)< E2tradition 6)/. See also (onencia, p. D>.

DSee (onencia, pp. ));)D.

*I$id., 7ection >, pars. :)< :DT7N, p. 0.

0See alsoT7N, p. */.

S > :D< :*< in rel. to S )/, P )/0+. See alsolast par., p. )*of(onencia.

) 97C7 S *)6, n > Criinal Procedure 6>04 *)A A (ur Dd S )/+E2tradition D.

+) 97C7 S *)6, n 06 Criinal Procedure 6>.

)/See 3ri"ht v. Court of Appeals, D*> 7CRA *6), Au"ust )>, )++6.

))*)AAm 4urDd E2tradition S )6.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_139465_2000.html#rnt11

7. Public International Law.docx

Documents

Transcript of 7. Public International Law.docx