US gov't confident of Jimenez's extradition

US officials are confident that former presidential adviser Mark Jimenez will be extradited to face charges in the United States despite a Supreme Court ruling that Jimenez be given a copy of every document Washington turns over to Manila.

At the Senate, Senators Aquilino Pimentel Jr. and Franklin Drilon said yesterday that Jimenez should be given due process before the government can hand him over to US authorities.

Pimentel and Drilon, along with Manila Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin, welcomed the Supreme Court's decision granting Jimenez's petition, which effectively delayed his extradition.

US Embassy officials said they understand that Jimenez's case must go through the judicial process in accordance with the Phi-lippine Constitution.

"Despite this delay, we expect that the end result of the judicial process will be a decision to extradite Mark Jimenez," said a statement from the US Embassy.

"While we have no timeline or deadline for a decision in the case, we expect the courts to act expeditiously. We would note that President Estrada has stated publicly that the case should be decided based on the facts."

The Americans described Jimenez's petition as "a delaying factor to the extradition request."

The embassy statement said the US government is counting on Mr. Estrada's assurance to Robert Freeh, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, that once the court rules on Jimenez's extradition, the order will be immediately carried out.

Pimentel, chairman of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, said the Supreme Court ruling has upheld the right of every Filipino to due process before being subjected to extradition proceedings.

"Jimenez should be informed about the nature of the accusations made against him by the US government," he said.

"In this particular issue, I tend to support the Supreme Court because it is important that before any Filipino is prosecuted in other countries, his life must be fully protected," Pimentel said.

Drilon, the Senate's majority leader, said the precedent-setting decision gives full meaning to the right of an individual to have access to evidence presented against him.

"This should prompt the Department of Justice (DOJ) to review the numerous extradition treaties to see what amendments could be made to avoid delays as a result of the decision," he said.

He pointed out the extradition treaty is an international obligation and that the other party expects compliance with the sovereign guarantees under the treaty.

"As a responsible member of the community of nations, we must be able to discharge faithfully our duties under the extradition treaties," he said.

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago observed that a person under extradition seems to have more rights than an accused in a criminal case.

"The split voting means that although this case is a precedent, the case law is weak and could be overturned in future cases," she said.

Earlier, Sin said in a statement that nobody can be judged unless proven guilty, and that everyone has the right to defend himself in court.

"The members of the highest tribunal have spoken," the Cardinal said in a statement to the media yesterday. "I have the highest esteem and trust for the members of the Supreme Court. I renew my trust in their sense of fairness," he said.

Foreign Affairs Secretary Domingo Siazon Jr. said the process to determine whether Jimenez should be extradited has only just begun.

"It's part of the game... the rules," he said. "He (Jimenez) can use his lawyers to question or delay (the extradition request)."

In a 9-6 vote, the Supreme Court upheld Tuesday the right of Jimenez to be given copies of the US diplomatic note to the Philippines and other documents relating to his extradition.

In August last year, a Manila court stopped the DOJ from processing the extradition of Jimenez to the US.

In response, the department elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Two Supreme Court justices told The STAR why they did not vote in favor of Jimenez's petition.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Reynato Puno said the Court's decision was in effect an encroachment on the President's authority over a bilateral agreement with another country.

"I respectfully submit that the majority decision has weakened the Executive by allowing nothing less than an unconstitutional headbutt on the power of the Executive to conduct our foreign affairs."

He said that his colleagues should have been "cautious in the conduct of the nation's foreign relations where the inviolable rule dictated by necessity is that the nation should speak with one voice.

"We should not overlook the reality that courts by their nature, are ill-equipped to fully comprehend the foreign policy dimensions of a treaty, some of which are hidden in shadows and silhouettes."

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Artemio Panganiban said that Jimenez was being given "too much due process" when the Court allowed him the right to be furnished copies of the evidence.

"The constitutional right to due process--particularly the right to be heard--finds no application. To grant private respondent's request for copies of the extradition documents and for an opportunity to comment thereon will constitute over-due process and unnecessarily delay the proceedings."

As for Jimenez's allegation that the US might push for his provisional arrest, Panganiban described it as "purely speculative." He stressed that there is still no threat of any deprivation of his liberty.

"It is elementary that this Court does not declare judgments or grant reliefs based on speculations, surmises and conjectures. Notably, international extradition proceedings in the US do not include the grant by the executive authority of notice and hearing to the prospective extraditee at this initial stage."

Justice Secretary Serafin Cuevas said that the Court's decision would adversely affect the request for extradition of other countries.

"It will serve as a precedent and therefore we should grant the same privilege to any convict or to any party sought to be extradited," he told newsmen in an interview. "That's our apprehension. The President has the final say. But we will try to convince him in one way or the other that it will not be nice if we will not move one way in favor of the government. I think we will be able to convince him."

He said they might push for a re-examination of the decision since the voting was "very close," and that persuading two or three justices might somehow sway the judgment. - With reports from Efren Danao, Perseus Echeminada, Sandy Araneta Delon Porcalla