Whatever Infos

Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion [Reconsideration] GR No. 139465    October 17, 2000 FACTS: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion (GR 139465, Jan. 18, 2000) and ordered the petitioner to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers and to grant him a reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting evidence. Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion On February 3, 2000, petitioner assailed, on his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, that the Court failed to look into the important facts and points with regards to extradition law: I. There is a substantial difference between an evaluation process antecedent to the filing of an extradition petition in court and a preliminary investigation. II. Absence of notice and hearing during the evaluation process will not result in a denial of fundamental fairness III. In the evaluation process, instituting a notice and hearing requir...

Secretary of Justice v. Lantion GR 139465, Jan. 18, 2000 FACTS: On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs a U. S. Note Verbale containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the United States. Attached to it were the Grand Jury Indictment, the warrant of arrest issued by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, and other supporting documents for said extradition.  Secretary of Justice v. Lantion On the same day, the petitioner designated and authorized a panel of attorneys to handle the case in pursuant to Section 5 (1) of Presidential Decree No. 1069. Said attorneys will make a "technical evaluation and assessment" of the extradition request and its supporting documents. The panel found that there are still documents that need to be addressed with. While the evaluation is still pending due to lack of documents, the respondent wrote a letter requesting copies of the of...

Govt. of the United States v. Purganan GR No. 148571, Sept. 24, 2002 FACTS: In accordance to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the United States Government, through diplomatic channels, sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale an extradition request of Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents, the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action, pursuant to Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1069, also known as the Extradition Law.  Govt. of the United States v. Purganan Jimenez then sought and was granted a TRO to prohibit the DOJ from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition which was later on assailed by the SOJ. The Court initially dismissed the petition, but later on reverse its decision when it filed its Motion for Reconsideration and held that private respondent was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation...

Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila GR No. L-24693 July 31, 1967 FACTS: The petition for prohibition against Ordinance No. 4760 was filed on July 5, 1963 by the petitioners, against the respondent Mayor of the City of Manila who was sued in his capacity as such "charged with the general power and duty to enforce ordinances of the City of Manila and to give the necessary orders for the faithful execution and enforcement of such ordinances." Read: Lim v. Pacquing It was alleged that the petitioner non-stock corporation is dedicated to the promotion and protection of the interest of its eighteen (18) members "operating hotels and motels, characterized as legitimate businesses, duly licensed by both national and city authorities, regularly paying taxes, employing and giving livelihood to not less than 2,500 person and representing an investment of more than P3 million."  Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila It was ...

FRANCISCO VS. FERNANDO G.R. No. 166501, November 16, 2006 FACTS: Petitioner Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr. (petitioner), as member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and taxpayer, filed this original action for the issuance of the writs of Prohibition and Mandamus.  Petitioner prays for the Prohibition writ to enjoin respondents Bayani F. Fernando, Chairman of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and the MMDA (respondents) from further implementing its “wet flag scheme” (“Flag Scheme”). Petitioner contends that the Flag Scheme: (1) has no legal basis because the MMDA’s governing body, the Metro Manila Council, did not authorize it; (2) violates the Due Process Clause because it is a summary punishment for jaywalking; (3) disregards the Constitutional protection against cruel, degrading, and inhuman punishment; and  (4) violates “pedestrian rights” as it exposes pedestrians to various potential hazards. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition ...