Source: https://pl.scribd.com/document/328292026/Government-of-Hongkong-v-Olalia
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:12:46+00:00

Document:
Please donate to keep Batas.org free.
filed with the RTC of Manila. Hong Kong reverted back to the People's Republic of China and became the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 1995. represented by the Philippine Department of Justice (DOJ). the RTC. petitioner. The facts are: On January 30. The petition alleges that both Orders were issued by respondent judge with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as there is no provision in the Constitution granting bail to a potential extraditee." It took effect on June 20. Private respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court with three (3) counts of the offense of "accepting an advantage as agent. On September 23. The DOJ then forwarded the request to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which. the DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for the provisional arrest of private respondent. the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision declaring the Order of Arrest void. prohibition and mandamus with application for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or writ of habeas corpus questioning the validity of the Order of Arrest. penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. On September 13. the DOJ filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari. docketed as G. praying that the Decision of the Court of Appeals be reversed. If convicted. 1997. warrants of arrest were issued against him. On August 23. 1999. That same day. No. in turn. the NBI agents arrested and detained him.motion to vacate the said Order of December 20. Manila issued an Order of Arrest against private respondent. private respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari. 1997. 2001 filed by the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. . He also faces seven (7) counts of the offense of conspiracy to defraud. Cap.R. On November 9. 1999. he faces a jail term of seven (7) to fourteen (14) years for each charge. On July 1. Branch 19. On November 12. the Republic of the Philippines and the then British Crown Colony of Hong Kong signed an "Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons. 201 of Hong Kong. 1999." in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. 140520. On October 14. 1999. 1997 and October 25. 1999. 1999. Branch 19 an application for the provisional arrest of private respondent.
Bail is set at Php750. thus: In conclusion.On December 18. 2000. private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order denying his application for bail. this Court will not contribute to accused's further erosion of civil liberties. petitioner Hong Kong Special Administrative Region filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for the extradition of private respondent.. docketed as Civil Case No. and 4. 1999. this Court rendered a Decision granting the petition of the DOJ and sustaining the validity of the Order of Arrest against private respondent. For his part. issued an Order denying the petition for bail. the cash bond will be forfeited in favor of the government.a petition for bail which was opposed by petitioner. in the same case. 99-95733. Accused must surrender his valid passport to this Court. 2001. 99-95733. holding that there is no Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high "flight risk. If accused fails in this undertaking. at any time and day of the week. Jr. 2001. raffled off to Branch 10. Accused is required to report to the government prosecutors handling this case or if they so desire to the nearest office. . On October 30. 2001.000.00 in cash with the condition that accused hereby undertakes that he will appear and answer the issues raised in these proceedings and will at all times hold himself amenable to orders and processes of this Court. inhibited himself from further hearing Civil Case No. The Decision became final and executory on April 10. Judge Bernardo. Jr. After hearing. 2001 allowing private respondent to post bail. private respondent filed. 3. It was then raffled off to Branch 8 presided by respondent judge. or on October 8. Meanwhile. This was granted by respondent judge in an Order dated December 20. as early as November 22. will further appear for judgment. 2. presided by Judge Ricardo Bernardo. Judge Bernardo." On October 22. 2001. The petition for bail is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The Department of Justice is given immediate notice and discretion of filing its own motion for hold departure order before this Court even in extradition proceeding. Jr. and if they further desire.
Branch 42. held that the constitutional provision on bail does not apply to extradition proceedings. Nonetheless." thus: x x x. be bailable by sufficient sureties. and that extradition is a harsh process resulting in a prolonged deprivation of one's liberty.k. but it was denied by respondent judge in his Order dated April 10. shall. private respondent maintained that the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a prospective extraditee. petitioner filed an urgent motion to vacate the above Order. On December 21. Hon.manifest before this Court to require that all the assets of accused. Excessive bail shall not be required. Jurisprudence on extradition is but in its infancy in this jurisdiction. the instant petition. with the condition that if the accused flees from his undertaking. In his comment on the petition. Jimenez. Article III of the Constitution provides that the right to bail shall not be impaired.a. thus: Sec. All persons. Presiding Judge. later Chief Justice. real and personal. or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. as well as Section 4. speaking through then Associate Justice Artemio V. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.  this Court. applies only when a person has been . before conviction. be filed with this Court soonest. Mario Batacan Crespo. Hence. Petitioner alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting private respondent to bail. RTC of Manila. It is "available only in criminal proceedings. 2001. 2002." the constitutional provision on bail quoted above. said assets be forfeited in favor of the government and that the corresponding lien/annotation be noted therein accordingly. In Government of United States of America v. As suggested by the use of the word "conviction. 13. the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings. SO ORDERED. Purganan. Guillermo G. Panganiban. a. and Mark B. Section 13. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. that there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential extraditee has a right to bail. this is not the first time that this Court has an occasion to resolve the question of whether a prospective extraditee may be granted bail.
and the law on extradition. and crimes against humanity. the above ruling applies squarely to private respondent's case.. crimes against peace. Constitution). The provision in the Constitution stating that the "right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended" does not detract from the rule that the constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal proceedings. the recognition that the individual person may properly be a subject of international law is now taking root. September 17. under the Nuremberg . The vulnerable doctrine that the subjects of international law are limited only to states was dramatically eroded towards the second half of the past century. per Fernando. (2) the higher value now being given to human rights in the international sphere. 41 SCRA 1. unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt" (De la Camara v. It cannot be taken to mean that the right is available even in extradition proceedings that are not criminal in nature. and (4) the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the individual under our fundamental law. It follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition. on the other. 1971. However. At first glance. Art. the second sentence in the constitutional provision on bail merely emphasizes the right to bail in criminal proceedings for the aforementioned offenses. For one. where the presumption of innocence is not at issue. 6. The modern trend in public international law is the primacy placed on the worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human rights. in the 20th century. VIII. (3) the corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations. on one hand. later CJ). Enage. Moreover. Slowly. It must be noted that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus finds application "only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion" (Sec.arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. the constitutional right to bail "flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal. J. this Court cannot ignore the following trends in international law: (1) the growing importance of the individual person in public international law who. the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World War II resulted in the unprecedented spectacle of individual defendants for acts characterized as violations of the laws of war. It does not apply to extradition proceedings because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal. has gradually attained global recognition. Recently. 18. Hence.
has the responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every person to liberty and due process. the UN General Assembly also adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which the Philippines signed and ratified. These remedies include the right to be admitted to bail. committed to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person. to enable it to decide without delay on the legality of the detention and order their release if justified. While not a treaty. 1948. and due process. First. This commitment is enshrined in Section II. the principles contained in the said Declaration are now recognized as customarily binding upon the members of the international community. this Court. the Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to every person under detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. such as deportation and quarantine. This Court has admitted to bail . have likewise been detained. on December 10. ensuring that those detained or arrested can participate in the proceedings before a court. however. also after World War II. In other words. to limit bail to criminal proceedings would be to close our eyes to our jurisprudential history. particularly the right to life and liberty. Serbian leaders have been persecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the former Yugoslavia. In 1966. liberty. in granting bail to a prospective deportee. the principles set forth in that Declaration are part of the law of the land. the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in which the right to life. liberty and all the other fundamental rights of every person were proclaimed. we note that the exercise of the State's power to deprive an individual of his liberty is not necessarily limited to criminal proceedings. Philippine jurisprudence has not limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal proceedings only. On a more positive note.principle. Thus. a reexamination of this Court's ruling in Purganan is in order. therefore. along with the other members of the family of nations. The Philippines. Respondents in administrative proceedings. While this Court in Purganan limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal proceedings. Director of Prisons. in Mejoff v." The Philippines. held that under the Constitution. Second. Thus. in light of the various international treaties giving recognition and protection to human rights. both international organizations and states gave recognition and importance to human rights. Fundamental among the rights enshrined therein are the rights of every person to life. Article II of our Constitution which provides: "The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. These significant events show that the individual person is now a valid subject of international law.
If bail can be granted in deportation cases. The 1909 case of US v. created by treaty." Extradition has thus been characterized as the right of a foreign power." Thus. the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights. the presumption lies in favor of human liberty. and the correlative duty of the other state to . 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) defines "extradition" as "the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government. As previously stated. some of the machinery used "is the machinery of criminal law. to demand the surrender of one accused or convicted of a crime within its territorial jurisdiction." and that while deportation is not a criminal proceeding. bail has been allowed in this jurisdiction to persons in detention during the pendency of administrative proceedings. there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition cases. After noting that the prospective deportee had committed no crime. this Court ruled that foreign nationals against whom no formal criminal charges have been filed may be released on bail pending the finality of an order of deportation. the Court in Mejoff relied upon the Universal declaration of Human Rights in sustaining the detainee's right to bail. a Chinese facing deportation for failure to secure the necessary certificate of registration was granted bail pending his appeal. Under these treaties. taking into cognizance the obligation of the Philippines under international conventions to uphold human rights. Thus. Director of Prisons and Chirskoff v.persons who are not involved in criminal proceedings. Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree (P. After all. Commission of Immigration.) No. In fact. the Court opined that "To refuse him bail is to treat him as a person who has committed the most serious crime known to law. both are administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue. the Philippines should see to it that the right to liberty of every individual is not impaired.D. Go-Sioco is illustrative. considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation cases. In this case. we see no justification why it should not also be allowed in extradition cases. Clearly. In Mejoff v. Likewise. the provisions relating to bail was applied to deportation proceedings.
In other words. It is not a criminal proceeding. it is characterized by the following: (a) it entails a deprivation of liberty on the part of the potential extraditee and (b) the means employed to attain the purpose of extradition is also "the machinery of criminal law. By any standard. an extradition proceeding. It is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the potential extraditee. No. however. to a prolonged restraint of liberty. A potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest. should not be the same as that in criminal proceedings. for it is not punishment for a crime." We further note that Section 20 allows the requesting state "in case of urgency" to ask for the "provisional arrest of the accused. but one that is merely administrative in character." Obviously. In the latter. an extradition proceeding is not by its nature criminal. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) which mandates the "immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused" if such "will best serve the interest of justice. but the length of time of the detention should be reasonable. the standard of due process is . Nor is it a full-blown civil action. But while extradition is not a criminal proceeding. such an extended period of detention is a serious deprivation of his fundamental right to liberty. The applicable standard of due process. Records show that private respondent was arrested on September 23. tracing its existence wholly to treaty obligations between different nations. when the trial court ordered his admission to bail. Its object is to prevent the escape of a person accused or convicted of a crime and to secure his return to the state from which he fled. 1999. while ostensibly administrative. bears all earmarks of a criminal process. It is sui generis. In fact. 2001. for the purpose of trial or punishment. pending receipt of the request for extradition." This is shown by Section 6 of P. "Temporary detention" may be a necessary step in the process of extradition. and forced to transfer to the demanding state following the proceedings. a right to due process under the Constitution. it was this prolonged deprivation of liberty which prompted the extradition court to grant him bail. he had been detained for over two (2) years without having been convicted of any crime. even though such punishment may follow extradition. there is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail. and remained incarcerated until December 20. however.surrender him to the demanding state. Even if the potential extraditee is a criminal. While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extraditee." and that release from provisional arrest "shall not prejudice re-arrest and extradition of the accused if a request for extradition is received subsequently.D.
liberty. The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court. Consequently. it does not necessarily mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations. Failure to comply with these obligations is a setback in our foreign relations and defeats the purpose of extradition." WHEREFORE. In his Separate Opinion in Purganan. deprive an extraditee of his right to apply for bail.  Given the foregoing. it is from this major premise that the ancillary presumption in favor of admitting to bail arises. However. the standard of substantial evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply given the object of extradition law which is to prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction. then Associate Justice. Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings.premised on the presumption of innocence of the accused. the standard of proof required in granting or denying bail can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil cases. While administrative in character. conduct the extradition proceedings with dispatch. the trial court should order the cancellation of his bail bond and his immediate detention. the premise behind the issuance of the arrest warrant and the "temporary detention" is the possibility of flight of the potential extraditee. and thereafter. This is based on the assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice. there is no showing that private respondent presented evidence to show that he is not a flight risk. now Chief Justice Reynato S. the prospective extraditee thus bears the onus probandi of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and should be granted bail. but also by international conventions. This case is REMANDED to the trial court to determine whether private respondent is entitled to bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence. As Purganan correctly points out. the Philippines should diminish a potential extraditee's rights to life. to which the Philippines is a party. . this standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence. we DISMISS the petition. therefore. provided that a certain standard for the grant is satisfactorily met. Puno. More so. and due process. In this case. not only by our Constitution. The time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda demands that the Philippines honor its obligations under the Extradition Treaty it entered into with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region." If not. According to him. proposed that a new standard which he termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be used in granting bail in extradition cases. where these rights are guaranteed. this case should be remanded to the trial court to determine whether private respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence. We should not. An extradition proceeding being sui generis.
CarpioMorales. G. 409. Ct. 46 F2d.  90 Phil. US. September 24. 664. Carpio. freedom. 252. footnote 2. 37 L. 107 So. 91 Fla. and amity with all nations.Ed. 22 S.R. 315. 191 F2d. 54 S. Godwin.. affd. .  G. Tinga. 905.  State v.  US ex rel Oppenheim v. Art. Quigg. 246 Ala. 97 F. Chase. Strautz. 16 F2d. 571. 273 US 969. Sweat. Velasco. adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace. Dominguez v. 256 (1951). No.J. 91 Fla. US v. II states "The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy. 148571. 149 US 698. 15 So. 70 (1951). Puno. Laubenheimer. Ct. 883. 2000. JJ. 108 So. bail is not available. See State v. Hutchinson. 386 lll. 78 L. 267. 484. Jr. State. 723. 92. Crim. 139465. 13 S. 534. 290 US 276. Chico-Nazario. 54 NE2d. 184 US 270. Ed.  12 Phil.  Secretary of Justice v. 441. 389 SCRA 623. justice. Sr. Austria-Martinez. 2002. Fong Yue Ting v. Varholy v.SO ORDERED. Ames. 90 Tex. 1016. Azcuna. 101. 343 SCRA 377. Hecht. Callejo.2d. 71 L.R. Baker v.  90 Phil.  Supra. cert den. Lantion. Supp. Ynares-Santiago. Ed. 490 (1909). Williams. No. 413.Ct. cooperation. 572."  In cases involving quarantine to prevent the spread of communicable diseases.Ct. 47 S. 932. Quisumbing. 2.  Sec. Garcia. 955. Corona. concur. 153 Fla. State v. 46 L. 541. 360. Fitzpatrick v. 234 SW 701.2d. 40. 18 So... C.. and Nachura. October 17. Terlindon v. 48.Ed. equality.  Factor v.
127 US 457.  Beaulieu v. 92. 362.Batas. 165 Wash. 311 F2d. Hartigan. McMahon.C. 8 S. 32 L. Affd.  Spatola v. 925 F2d. stay den. . 649. Ed.  Benson v.2d 1. Jimenez v.A. Copyright 2016 . State ex rel Tresoder v. 866. 314 F2d. 741 F. 4 P2d. 145 NW 574. US. Supp. 234.197. 27 ND 155. 554 F. Aristequieta. 615. Remann. 1240.org G. Ct. 547.  Re Henderson.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
sui generis
sui generis
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.