THE CASE AND THE TREATY. BORN with a Spanish national father, Francisco Juan “ Paco ” Larrañaga can be incarcerated in Spain through the Republic of the Philippines-Kingdom of Spain Treaty on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (RP-Spain TSPA).
This treaty was ratified by the Senate several years ago,bythe Philippine Senate and, therefore, binding to our country and is enforceable by both parties.
It must also be emphasized that under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the laws of this country.
There is a Latin maxim in international law which says: “Pactasuntservanda,” meaning that a valid treaty must be accepted and observed in good faith. Upon this principle, we cannot renege on our commitment just because some people are against its implementation. For as long as the treaty remains and both parties observe it in good faith, we must abide by it and carry out our obligation under it.
The only way by which a valid treaty may be abrogated is when some developments happen which are inconsistent with it, as when the parties or any of the parties may refuse to carry it out. This is the so-called doctrine of “Rebus sic stantivus.” A ratified treaty is a commitment which we must honor, and the test of such a treaty is in the manner in which we implement the same.
Thelma Chiong, mother of the victims, said she was shocked over the justice department’s sudden approval of the request of Larrañaga.
A lawmaker has called for a congressional inquiry into the decision of the Department of Justice (DoJ) to allow convicted rapist Juan Francisco “Paco” Larrañaga to serve out the rest of his life sentence in a Spanish prison.
party-list lawmaker, Gabriela Rep. LuzvimindaIlagan, warned that Larrañaga might enjoy many benefits in Spain and might attain his freedom once he is there.
There is a pending case before the Supreme Court, and there is danger that the action of the Department of Justice might be temporarily restrained by the SC. So in order to avoid that possible embarrassment, I humbly think that the DOJ should just issue their implementing rules and regulations, which should normally include--like in an extradition hearing--a public hearing where the adverse party is also notified. There is no automatic extradition; there is always a hearing before a court of justice so that the persons who might be affected by the extradition proceedings and who are interested in keeping the alien here would raise their objections properly, and be heard at least by the judge. There is nothing wrong with extraditing, or in this case transferring, the foreign citizen, provided that the other party has been notified. I think that is all they are asking for; they just want to be heard on why he should be kept here rather than sent to Spain.