You are on page 1of 9

I.

Philippine Constitution. Article 2, Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law
as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation, and amity with all nations.
TABLE OF EXTRADITION WALA
PROCEDURE ON EXTRADITION CHECK SA BABA PD 1069

II.

U.S. vs. JUDGE PURUGANAN – “Mark Jimenez / extradition is not criminal in nature / no
bail” While his case was pending in the US (tax evasion & conspiracy to defraud the US
Government), Mark Jimenez fled to the Phils. Thus, the US seeks to extradite him. During
the extradition proceedings, Jimenez applied for bail. Is he entitled to bail? No. Extradition
proceedings are sui generis. They are not criminal proceedings w/c call into operation the
rights of the accused under the Bill of Rights. Thus the right to bail does not accrue. The
only question that has to be resolved in such proceedings is whether he is extraditable and
the extraditing country complied w/ the treaty. It is only a measure of international judicial
assistance, usually summary in nature, and requires merely a prima facie case. Final
discretion lies w/ the President. It is not concerned w/ his guilt or innocence, w/c will be
tried separately by the extraditing country. Further, Jimenez has demonstrated the capacity
and will to flee, w/c is precisely what the Extradition Treaty guards against.
The general rule is that in extradition proceedings, bail is NOT a matter of right. It may only
be granted as an exception if:
1. The defendant can demonstrate that he is not a “flight risk,” and
2. Exceptional, humanitarian, or compelling circumstances.
Jimenez bears the burden of proving the existence of any of the 2 exceptions.
Dissent of Justice Puno
From the moment a person is arrested, the guarantees under the Bill of Rights operate,
including his right to bail. This is more in accord w/ the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
as well as the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
DD: A “flight risk” is a person who demonstrates the capacity and the will to escape.

XII.

GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG v. OLALIA - Juan Antonio Munoz was wanted in HK. He
was arrested here in the Philippines. He applied for bail which was initially denied but was
granted by Judge Olalia on reconsideration. A petition for certiorari was filed in the SC
where the court held that Judge Olalia did not err. Extradition is not a criminal proceeding
but is an administrative proceeding. Although the court in Puruganan ruled that bail only
applies to criminal proceeding, the decision was revised taking into consideration the
various treaty obligations of the Philippines in international law that uphold human rights.
Among the rights involved is the right to liberty. Although our extradition law does not
provide a grant for bail to an extraditee, it neither prohibits an application for bail.
Extradition proceeding is sui generis and partakes of an administrative nature. However,
extradition bears all the earmarks of a criminal proceeding. A potential extraditee may be
detained and arrested. While the Philippines must honor its extradition obligation to HK, it
should not diminish Munoz’s right to life, liberty, and due process which are guaranteed not
only by the constitution but also by the various international covenants to which the
Philippines is a party. Thus, Munoz is entitled to bail, provided that he proves with clear and

The matter was submitted to the ICJ. to pronounce the withdrawal of such certificates. is in fact signatory to the UN Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. ATTORNEY GENERALOF ISRAEL v. In disciplinary matters. THE S. He was tried before an Israel Court for war crimes he allegedly committed during the Second World War – more particularly genocide against the Jewish Race. the State which has issued a master's certificate or a certificate of competence or licence shall alone be competent after due legal process. considering that there are 2 ships involved. and their assumption of jurisdiction was contrary to IL. and the Lotus arrived at Constantinople (Turkey) where the Lieutenant of The Lotus. there has been a growing regard for the sanctity of basic human rights. w/c was split into 2. XIII. and what occurs therein is treated as if it took place in the state itself. Territoriality of criminal laws is not absolute and admits of certain exceptions.convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk. no penal or administrative proceedings may be instituted against the master of a ship except before the judicial or administrative authorities of the (1) flag state. involving the penal or disciplinary responsibility of the master or of any other person in the service of the ship. New Rule: under Article 97 UNCLOS. True that a ship forms an extension of the territory of its flag state. The Phils. III. as well as the captain of the Boz-Kourt Hassan were arrested and tried for and convicted of involuntary manslaughter based on Turkish Law. no penal or disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against such person except before the judicial or administrative authorities either of the flag State or of the State of which such person is a national.S. France alleges that since the crime was committed in the vessel bearing its flag. Article 97. Monsieur Demons. causing the death of 8 Turkish nationals. 2. The survivors were rescued. IV. France contends that the Turkish courts have no jurisdiction. In IL. or (2) the state to w/c such person is a national. Thus. shall be ordered by any authorities other than those of the flag State. The individual is now a valid “subject” of international law. In this case. Does the Israel Court have jurisdiction even if the acts were committed elsewhere? Affirmative. Turkey need not locate a principle of IL to justify the exercise of jurisdiction. No arrest or detention of the ship. it suffices that there is no prohibition. LOTUS CASE – “collision case / extension of territory / concurrent jurisdiction” The French steamer Lotus collided w/ the Turkish vessel Boz-Kourt while both were in the high seas. EICHMANN – “genocide / hostis humani generis” Eichmann (one of Hitler’s high ranking generals) escaped to Argentina after the war and was abducted by Israeli agents. When a person commits a crime against the law of nations such as . then the act (negligence) committed by Demons affects both the territory of France and Turkey – hence they may exercise concurrent jurisdiction. In the absence of a prohibitive rule. Case was remanded to the trial court to see if there is clear and convincing evidence that Munoz is not a flight risk. the states have ample discretion. In the event of a collision or any other incident of navigation concerning a ship on the high seas. Penal jurisdiction in matters of collision or any other incident of navigation 1. 3. There is no principle in IL that prohibits Turkey from assuming jurisdiction. it should have exclusive jurisdiction. even if the holder is not a national of the State which issued them. even as a measure of investigation.

Philippine Extradition Law (P. hijacking and sabotage. hostage taking. the court concluded that Doherty’s actions fell under the exception considering (a) the area where the act took place. Now. Extradition may be granted only pursuant to a treaty or convention. He fled to the US. 1069) A. while as a general rule. the jurisdiction of a state may extend to punishment of offenses against the laws of nations. He places himself beyond the protection of any state. but was able to escape. . The punishment of genocide is a matter if international concern condemned by all of the civilized world. malicious assault. He was arrested and charged. with such duration as that stipulated in the relevant extradition treaty or convention. Thus. (b) that there was no violation of the Geneva Convention and IL. The factors that have to be considered whether an act will qualify under the exception of political nature are: (1) the nature of the act. IN RE: REQUEST FOR EXTRADITION OF DOHERTY – “political exception / standards” Doherty was a member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (rebel) w/c organized an ambush of a British Army convoy. and certain offenses involving firearms. crimes against peace. explosives. and other heinous crimes such as murder. he becomes an enemy to all mankind – a hostis humani generis. but the US court disallowed the same on the ground that the crime charged against Doherty was political in nature.D. "Extradition" is 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. manslaughter. UK seeks to extradite him. V. criminal jurisdiction is territorial. It is in fact the moral duty of every state to enforce the natural right to punish such criminals guilty of the most extreme violations of the laws of nature so detrimental to the welfare of the international community. and torture. The same would apply to slavery. Applying the above standards. to be served in the jurisdiction of and as a punishment for an offense committed by the accused within the territorial jurisdiction of the requesting state or government. and damage to property. VIII. B.piracy (or in this case genocide). (3) status of the party committing the act. and various affirmations of the UN General Assembly. Genocide has already been recognized as such under various conventions – such as the Charter of the Nuremberg Trial. and with a view to: (a) A criminal investigation instituted by authorities of the requesting state or government charging the accused with an offense punishable under the laws both of the requesting state or government and the Republic of the Philippines by imprisonment or other form relevant extradition treaty or convention. and (5) particularized circumstances. (4) nature of the organization. causing the death of a soldier. cries against diplomats. (2) the context in w/c it was committed. and (c) the attack was not targeted towards civilians. the Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide (under the UN). or (b) The execution of a prison sentence imposed by a court of the requesting state or government. The extradition treaty between the US and UK was later amended to exclude from the “political nature” exception certain serious offenses such as: terrorism.

the acts or omissions complained of. and the time and place of the commission of these acts. regardless of the subsequent whereabouts of the accused. (1) Immediately upon receipt of the petition.C. may request for the extradition of any accused who is or suspected of being in the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. (2) The attorney so designated shall file a written petition with the proper Court of First Instance of the province or city having jurisdiction of the place. (3) The Court of First Instance with which the petition shall have been filed shall have and continue to have the exclusive power to hear and decide the case. Duty of Secretary of Foreign Affairs. the presiding judge of the court shall. addressed to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. summon the accused to appear and to answer the petition on the day and hour fixed in the order. E. he shall forward the request together with the related documents to the Secretary of Justice. D. only when the relevant treaty or convention. Request. By whom made. Referral of Request: Filing of Petition. Requirements. (1) Any foreign state or government with which the Republic of the Philippines has entered into extradition treaty or convention. with the fullest particulars as to the name and identity of the accused. remains in force. The filing of the petition and the service of the summons to the accused shall be free from the payment of docket and sheriff's fees. with a prayer that the court take the request under consideration and shall attach to the petition all related documents. and shall be accompanied by: (a) The original or an authentic copy of either (1) the decision or sentence imposed upon the accused by the court of the requesting state or government. if known. or (2) the criminal charge and the warrant of arrest issued by the authority of the requesting state or government having jurisdiction of the matter or some other instruments having the equivalent legal force. his whereabouts in the Philippines. Temporary Arrest. (b) A recital of the acts for which extradition is requested. and (d) Such other documents or information in support of the request. Issuance of Summons. or the change or changes of his place of residence. sufficient for evaluation of the request. Service of Notices. and the designation or description of the offense by the law. Hearing. We may issue a warrant for the immediate arrest of the accused which may . who shall immediately designate and authorize an attorney in his office to take charge of these cases. (2) The request shall be made by the Foreign Diplomat of the requesting state or government. (1) Unless it appears to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs that the request fails to meet the requirements of this law and the relevant treaty or convention. as soon as practicable. (c) The text of the applicable law or a statement of the contents of said law.

or if he is not under detention. . and the hearing shall be conducted in such a manner as to arrive as a fair and speedy disposition of the case. if issued. Decision. Otherwise.be served any where within the Philippines if it appears to the presiding judge that the immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused will best serve the ends of justice. the court shall forthwith issue a warrant for this arrest which may be served upon the accused anywhere in the Philippines. the presiding judge shall hear the ace or set another date for the hearing thereof. Stay of Execution (1) The accused may. the provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as practicable and not inconsistent with the summary nature of the proceedings. (3) Should the accused fail to appear on the date set for hearing. it shall dismiss the petition. within 10 days from receipt of the decision of the Court of First Instance granting extradition cases shall be final and immediately executory. retain private counsel to represent it for particular extradition case. Legal Representation. and the clerk of the court shall immediately forward two copies thereof to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs through the Department of Justice. G. Nature and Conduct of Proceedings. (2) Sworn statements offered in evidence at the hearing of any extradition case shall be received and admitted as evidence if properly and legally authenticated by the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the Republic of the Philippines residing in the requesting state. If on the date set for the hearing the accused does not have a legal counsel. F. (1) In the hearing. (2) The attorney having charge of the case may upon request represent the requesting state or government throughout the proceeding. J. and giving his reasons therefor upon showing of the existence of a prima facie case. shall be promptly served each upon the accused and the attorney having charge of the case. The requesting state or government may. Appointment of Counsel de Oficio. I. Appeal by Accused. (2) The order and notice as well as a copy of the warrant of arrest. that it be conducted in chamber. Upon receipt of the answer. the court shall render a decision granting the extradition. (2) The appeal shall stay the execution of the decision of the Court of First Instance. shall apply to extradition cases. Service of Decision. the presiding judge shall appoint any law practitioner residing within his territorial jurisdiction as counsel de oficio for the accused to assist him in the hearing. or should the accused after having received the summons fail to answer within the time fixed. The decision of the court shall be promptly served on the accused if he was not present at the reading thereof. Hearing in Public. H. however. Upon conclusion of the hearing. Exception. with leave of court. (1) The hearing shall be public unless the accused requests. K.

S. and such articles shall be delivered to the foreign diplomat of the requesting state or government who shall issue the corresponding receipt therefor. if there be one. Manila. All processes emanating from the court in connection with extradition cases shall be served or executed by the Sheriff of the province or city concerned or of any member of any law enforcement agency. all costs or expenses incurred in any extradition proceeding and in apprehending. shall decide which of the several requests shall be first considered. the requesting state may. after consultation with the Secretary of Justice. If extradition is granted. Service of Decision of Court of Appeals. the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. M. Surrender of Accused. through the Department of Justice. the accused shall be placed at the disposal of the authorities of the requesting state or government. after consultation with the foreign diplomat of the requesting state or government. and copies of the former's decision thereon shall promptly be forwarded to the attorney having charge of the case. and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs shall cause the amounts to be collected and transmitted to the Secretary of Justice for deposit in the National Treasury of the Philippines. either through the diplomatic channels or direct by post or telegraph. at a time and place to be determined by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Provisional Arrest. P. R. (b) A request for provisional arrest shall be sent to the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation. By Whom Paid.L. pursuant to the relevant treaty or convention and while the same remains in force. except that the parties may file typewritten or mimeograph copies of their brief within 15 days from receipt of notice to file such briefs. Application of Rules of Court. The Secretary of Justice shall certify to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs the amounts to be paid by the requesting state or government on account of expenses and costs. The accused and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. N. articles found in the possession of the accused who has been arrested may be seized upon order of the court at the instance of the requesting state or government. In case extradition of the same person has been requested by two or more states. After the decision of the court in an extradition case has become final and executory. Costs and Expenses. Q. Except when the relevant extradition treaty provides otherwise. O. request for provisional arrest of the accused pending receipt of the request for extradition made in accordance with Section 4 of this Decree. securing and transmitting an accused shall be paid by the requesting state or government. shall each be promptly served with copies of the decision of the Court of Appeals. through the Department of Justice. (c) The Director of the National Bureau of Investigation or any official acting on his behalf shall upon receipt of the request immediately secure a warrant for the provisional arrest of the accused from the presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of the province or city having . Service of Court Processes. The provisions of the Rules of Court governing appeal in criminal cases in the Court of Appeals shall apply in appeal in Extradition cases. Seizure and Turn Over of Accused Properties. (a) In case of urgency. Concurrent Request for Extradition.

The RTC has yet to rule on the same. The balance is thus tilted in favor of the State. the nature of the right being claimed is nebulous in character and the degree of injury is minimal. (d) If within a period of 20 days after the provisional arrest the Secretary of Foreign Affairs has not received the request for extradition and the documents mentioned in Section 4 of this Decree. His contentions are all untenable. LANTION – “extradition / notice & hearing” Herein respondent (Mark Jimenez) demands that he be furnished a copy of the extradition petition and its supporting papers pending the evaluation stage w/ the Sec. that requirement also applies to the petition for extradition. Such procedural protection has not yet become due given the extent to w/c the defendant is to suffer loss or injury. that the offense charged against him is not punishable under our laws (dual-criminality rule). a verified petition for extradition was filed by the HK Justice Department. Considering that the petition is still under the evaluation of the Secretary of Justice. (e) Release from provisional arrest shall not prejudice re-arrest and extradition of the accused if a request for extradition is received subsequently in accordance with the relevant treaty of convention. and that the request and documents in support of the request were not verified and were sent though fax machine. what has to be verified is the petition for extradition. the request for provisional arrest and its accompanying documents need not be verified. The HK Court issued a warrant for his arrest but he fled to the Phils. The request for provisional arrest also need not be sent by official diplomat. the accused shall be released from custody. The implementing law. the HK Justice Department is the . The Justice Department of HK requested the DOJ for provisional arrest.” Muñoz was charged before a Hong Kong court for 7 counts of bribery and 7 counts of conspiracy to defraud. 1069. whether the dual criminality rule was complied with is a decision for the court where the extradition petition is filed. a criminal procedure cannot be equated w/ an extradition proceeding and it follows that the evaluation process is not similar to preliminary investigation. IX. X. making his petition premature. Muñoz assails the validity of the provisional arrest. Thereafter. considering that the case is only in its evaluation process. Also. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. DD: Notice and hearing for extradition cases is not required during the Executive Phase of the proceedings. SEC. then it is still in the Executive Phase – hence no notice and hearing is yet required. MUÑOZ – “provisional arrest / substantial compliance w/ requirements. For the purpose of notice and hearing. The Director of the National Bureau of Investigation through the Secretary of Foreign Affairs shall inform the requesting of the result of its request. There was also urgency in the request. Nonetheless. but it is required in the Judicial Phase thereof. considering the gravity of the offense charged and the capacity of the extraditee to flee or destroy evidence. PD No. This in fact is the purpose of provisional arrest. Also applying the balancing of interests test. the latter thus successfully procured an Order of Provisional Arrest from the RTC Manila. First. He claims that such refusal violates the right to notice and hearing. of Justice. The same rule is likewise provided in the treaty to w/c both the US and the Philippines agree – and to w/c other countries have expressed the same interpretation. to w/c the latter refuses. OF JUSTICE vs. alleging that he was detained longer than the 20-day period under PD No.jurisdiction of the place. who shall issue the warrant for the provisional arrest of the accused. 1069 provides that the notice shall be given at the same time as the warrant of arrest.

There may be extra-territorial jurisdiction. § Even if an act was lawful where it was done. 2. All summed up. • XV. The following are salient findings and conclusions elucidated in the article: § The general rule regarding jurisdiction is territoriality. was never meant to be an absolute rule. there was substantial compliance w/ all legal requirements. but this is subject to the principles of IL. where the offender is deemed an enemy to all mankind – a hostis humani generis . in this case. § The passive territoriality principle – a state may claim to punish aliens for offenses committed abroad to the injury of its own nationals. and not from the laws of his state.authorized official to request for the same. § The security principle – a state may exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over crimes directed against its security. EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION & THE US ANTITRUST LAWS – The discussion revolved primarily on the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction. the courts can apply not only the place of incorporation test but also other tests such as control test to determine nationality and activities. credit. RODRIGUEZ VS RTC OF MANILA WALA XI. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State. the Harvard draft code proposes that it should not cover acts done under cover of a liberty guaranteed under local law. for the purpose of applying the US anti-trust laws. lest it be subject to abuse. This is reasonable considering that most states do not punish persons for offenses directed against other states. This. Article 8: Article 8 1. But this rule must be limited to prevent abuse. seriously affect the operation of air services. § The universality principle – the suppression of crime is an interest common to all states. it amounts to abuse.” This is the most questionable of all grounds – considering that when a person resides in another territory. This rule is specifically applicable to such crimes as piracy. Contracting States undertake to include the offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them. and there must be limits and underlying justifications for its exercise. in w/c case. however. or interests. § The principle of nationality – IL permits a state to claim jurisdiction over its nationals (natural or juridical) w/o territorial limit. There was also factual basis for the finding of the RTC of probable cause. the provisional arrest is therefore valid. it may still be made unlawful in another jurisdiction – especially if there is prejudice to the safety and interests of the latter. he must then seek redress based on the laws of that place. But the extra-territorial exercise of such jurisdiction must not be permitted to extend in such a way as to amount to interference w/ the affairs of another sovereign state. With regard to corporations. MONTREAL CONVENTION of 1981 unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation jeopardize the safety of persons and property. and undermine the confidence of the peoples of the world in the safety of civil aviation. territorial integrity. The offences shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between Contracting States. that a state is competent to punish crimes committed w/in its own territory. This is also known as the “protection principle. If a Contracting State which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another Contracting State with which it has no extradition treaty. it may at its option consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of the offences.

The objective principle is said to apply where the act produces effects to the territory of the state. This applies in the following cases: (1) the act was commenced w/in the state but consummated in another state (subjective principle). Intent is immaterial. .§ Extension of the territorial principle – The offense is deemed committed w/in a state’s territory when one of its constituent elements. but of territorial jurisdiction – except extended. This is in fact an exercise not necessarily of extraterritorial jurisdiction. but such “effects” must be limited to only those w/c are a direct consequence of the act (proximate cause). or (2) the act was commenced in another state but consummated w/in the territory of the subject state (objective principle). more so its effects. take place there.