USA vs Purganan
Bail is not a matter of right in extradition cases.
Extradition Different from Ordinary
Criminal Proceedings
Conviction applies only when a person has been
arrested and detained for violation of Philippine
criminal laws
does not apply to extradition proceedings,
because extradition courts do not render
judgments of conviction or acquittal
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, UNLESS his
guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt
does not apply to a case like extradition, where
the presumption of innocence is not at issue.
Second sentence in the constitutional provision on bail
merely emphasizes the right to bail in criminal
proceedings for the aforementioned offenses.
cannot be taken to mean that the right is
available even in extradition proceedings that
are not criminal in nature
No Violation of Due Process
No one shall be deprived of liberty without due
process of law."
Detention prior to the extradition proceedings
does not amount to a violation of his right to due
process.
Due process opportunity to be heard and does not
always call for a prior opportunity to be heard
Respondent WILL be given full opportunity to be heard
subsequently, when extradition court hears the
Petition for Extradition.
No violation of his right to due process and
fundamental fairness
BEFORE the US government requested the extradition
of respondent, proceedings had already been
conducted in that country.
He left the jurisdiction of the US before
proceedings could be completed
it was hindered from continuing with the due
processes under its laws
His invocation of due process now has thus
become hollow. He already had that
opportunity in the US; yet, instead of taking it,
he ran away.
(SandeeSuan)
Exceptions to the No Bail Rule
To best save the ends of justice
After an extraditee has been arrested or placed
under the custody of the law
bail may be applied for and granted as an
exception,
upon a clear and convincing showing that:
(1) once granted bail, the applicant will
not be a flight risk or a danger to
the community; and
(2) t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s p e c i a l ,
humanitarian and compelling
circumstances including, as a
matter of reciprocity, those cited by
the highest court in the requesting
state when it grants provisional
liberty in extradition cases therein.
Extradition an executive, not a judicial, responsibility
arising from the presidential power to conduct
foreign relation
(1) Alleged Disenfranchisement: Jimenez contends
that while his extradition was pending, he was
elected as a member of the House of
Representatives. and that his detention will
disenfranchise his Manila district residents.
NOT A COMPELLING REASON TO GRANT HIM
BAIL
People vs Jalosos. Performance of legitimate
and even essential duties by public officers has
never been an excuse to free a person validly
[from] prison.
Before Jimenez ran and won as a congressman
in Manila, it was already of public knowledge
that the United States was requesting his
extradition. Hence, his constituents were or
should have been prepared for the
consequences of the extradition case against
their representative, including his detention
pending the final resolution of the case.
(2) Anticipated Delay: Jimenez contends that extradition
proceedings are lengthy, it would be unfair to
confine him during the pendency of the case.
NOT CONVINCED
(3) Not a Flight Risk: Claims he is not a flight risk and
that he learned of the extradition request in June
1999; yet, he has not fled the country.
The extradition court may continue hearing
evidence on the application for bail, which may
be granted in accordance with the guidelines in
this Decision.
Page 1 of 5
 Lim vs CA
On December 7, 1992, Bistro filed for TRO against
Mayor Lim for inspecting and investigating his
business license, work permits and health certificates
of his staff in his night club which caused the stoppage
of work and restaurant operations. Lim also refused to
accept Bistros business license and wool permit
applications.
Bistro cited De la Cruz vs. Paras which states :
Municipal corporations cannot prohibit the operation
of nightclubs. They may be regulated, but not
prevented from carrying on their business.
TRO was granted but Lim still issued closure order on
Bistros operations effective January 23, 1993, even
sending policemen to carry out his closure order.
Bistro filed an Urgent Motion for Contempt against
Lim but withdrew on the condition that Lim respects the
courts injunction.
Lim, through his agents and policemen, disrupted
Bistros business operations and filed a motion to
dissolve the injunctive order and dismiss the case. and
invoked:
Section 11 (l), Article II of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila
Sec. 11. General duties and powers of the mayor. The general duties and
powers of the mayor shall be:
(l) To grant and refuse municipal licenses or permits of all classes and
to revoke the same for violation of the conditions upon which they
were granted, or if acts prohibited by law or municipal ordinances are
being committed under the protection of such licenses or in the
premises in which the business for which the same have been granted
is carried on, or for any other reason of general interest.
Section 455 (3) (iv) of the Local Government Code
Sec. 455. Chief Executive, Powers, Duties and Compensation:
(b) For efficient, effective and economical governance the purpose of which
is the general welfare of the City and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16
of this Code, the City Mayor shall:
(3)
(iv) Issue licenses and permits and suspend or revoke the same for
any violation of the condition upon which said licenses or permits had
been issued, pursuant to law or ordinance."
Trial court denied Lims motion to dissolve the
injunction. CA also denied the motion for
reconsideration.
July 1, 1993 Manila City Ordinance No. 7783 took
effect. Lim ordered the Western Police District to
permanently close down the operations of Bistro.
CA said that the trial court did not commit grave abuse
of discretion.
Writ of preliminary injunction may only be
resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve his rights
or interests and for no other purpose during the
pendency of the principal action. It is primarily intended
to maintain the status quo between the parties existing
prior to the filing of the case.
ISSUE: WON Mayor Lim validly ordered the
closure of Respondent Bistros New Bangkok Club and
the Exotic Garden Restaurant
(SandeeSuan)
Validity of the Preliminary Injunction
PETITIONER LIM RESPONDENT BISTRO
- Contends that CA erred in - Legal provision relied by Lim do not
upholding the TRO apply to the instant case
- Relies on his power as Mayor to - the LGC and Revised Charter of
grant and refuse municipal licenses Manila do not expressly or
proved on LGC and Revised Charter impliedly grant Lim any power to
of Manila prohibit operation of night
- includes the power to inspect, clubs
investigate and close down Bistros - Lim failed to specify any violations
operations for violations of the of the condition of its licenses and
conditions of its permits and permits
licenses - In refusing to accept the license
application, Bistro was denied of
due process of law
From the laws, it is clear that the power of the mayor to
issue business licenses and permits includes the
power to suspend, revoke or even refuse to issue the
same but is expressly premised on the violation of
the conditions.
Power to refuse to issue is for the non-compliance
with the prerequisites for the issuance of such licenses
and permits.
Mayor must observe due process in exercising these
powers and must give the applicant notice and
opportunity to be heard.
Mayor has the power to inspect and investigate private
commercial establishments for violation of the
conditions of their licenses and permits but has no
power to order a police raid on these establishment
under inspecting or investigating.
Lim acted beyond his authority when he directed
policemen to raid the New Bangkok Club and the
Exotic Garden Restaurant.
Lim violated Ordinance No. 7716, which prohibits
police raids and inspections:
"Section 1. No member of the Western Police District shall conduct
inspection of food and other business establishments for the purpose
of enforcing sanitary rules and regulations, inspecting licenses and
permits, and/or enforcing internal revenue and customs laws and
regulations. This responsibility should be properly exercised by Local
Government Authorities and other concerned agencies."
Lim has no authority to close down any business
establishment without due process of law.
He cannot invoke the Revised Charter of Manila and
LGC.
There is no provision which expressly or impliedly
grants the mayor the authority to close down
private establishments without notice or hearing,
even if there is, would be void.
Lim should give Bistro and opportunity to rebut the
allegations that they violated the conditions.
We find that Lims exercise of this power violated
Bistros property rights that are protected under the
due process clause of the Constitution.
Lim did not charge Bistro with any specific violation of
the conditions of its business license or permits but
still ordered to close down.
Lim also refused to accept Bistros application for
license and denying him without examining if it
complies with the legal prerequisites.
It is presumed that he acted in good faith and was
motivated by his concern for his constituents but was
not an excuse for arbitrarily closing down Bistros
business.
Page 2 of 5
Libanan vs Sandiganbayan
Libanan, incumbent Vice-governor of Eastern Samar, was a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan prior
to the 1992 elections.
Libanan was among those charged before the Sandiganbayan for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act
3019
o Sometime January 1991, Libanan, together with the other officials, willfully and unlawfully
prevented and excluded Augustin Docena, who was appointed and qualified replacement of the
deceased Sangguniang Panlalawigan member Luis Capito.
o They promulgated Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 1, Series of 1991, where they
expressly recognized and appointed Atty. Socrates Alar as replacement for the deceased
member, which prejudiced Augustin Docena

Sandiganbayan issued resolution on July 1993, where the accused officials pendente lite (during litigation)
were charger under valid information were suspended from their respective public positions or from any
other public office that they may be holding, for a period of 90 days.
Libanan filed for motion for reconsideration which was denied.

ISSUE: WON Suspension ordered by Sandiganbayan violates Libanans right to due process

Section 13, Republic Act No. 3019 Petitioner contends:

Sec. 13. Suspension and Loss of Benefits. Any
- order of suspension while being a Sangguniang
Bayan Member will no longer affect him now that he is
incumbent public officer against whom any criminal
the duly elected and incumbent Vice-Governor
prosecution under a valid information under this Act or
under title 7, book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any - the implementation of suspension order would amount
offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or to deprivation of property without due process of law
property whether as a simple or as a complex offense and
in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is
pending in court, shall be suspended from office

Office used in law could apply to any office which
the officer charged might be currently holding and not
necessarily the particular office under which he was
charged.
Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan
Court rejected a similar argument who was a governor at
the suspension and no longer the municipal mayor when he
was charged with violating anti-graft law.

Suspension order cannot amount to deprivation of Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan

property without due process of law.
Suspension of Mayor Bayot was sustained even if he was
charged when he was a government auditor for CoA.
Public office is "a public agency or trust," and it is not
the property envisioned by the Constitutional provision
which petitioner invokes.

(SandeeSuan) Page 3 of 5
Javier vs Commerce
Both parties were candidates in Antique for the
Batasanag Pambansa in May 1984 elections.
- Javier appeared to enjoy more popular support.
Pacificador has the advantage of being the
nominee of KBL and all its perquisites of power.
On the eve of the elections, May 13, 1984, several
followers of Javier were ambushed and killed, allegedly
by Pacificadors men. Seven suspects including the
respondent are now facing trial for these murders.
- It intimidated voters which made Pacificador win.
Javier went to the Comelec to question the canvass of
election returns.
- His complaints were dismissed and private
respondent was proclaimed winner by 2nd division
Petitioner then went to SC and argued that the
proclamation was void because it was only made by a
division and not by the Comelec en banc as required
by the constitution. Pacificador took his oath as a
member of Batasan Pambansa
February 11, 1986 Javier was gunned down in cold
blood and broad daylight
The nation was anger over the obvious manipulation of
the presidential elections in favor of Marcos, was
revolted by the killing, by people who has disregarded
the law and believed that they were above the law
The murder of Javier was possible one of the reasons
that strengthened the cause of the Opposition in the
February evolution the toppled the Marcos Regime and
installed the new government under Cory Aquino
The abolition of Batasang Pambansa and the
disappearance of the parties in dispute could be a
convenient justification for dismissing the case.
It is a notorious fact decried by many people and even
by the foreign press that elections during the period
of the Marcos dictatorship were in the main a
desecration of the right of suffrage. Vote-buying,
intimidation and violence, illegal listing of voters,
falsified returns, and other elections anomalies
misrepresented and vitiated the popular will and led to
the induction in office of persons who did not enjoy the
confidence of the sovereign electorate. Genuine
elections were a rarity.
The price at times was human lives. The rule was
chicanery and irregularity, and on all levels of the polls,
from the barangay to the presidential.
It is a matter of record that the petitioner complained
against the terroristic acts of his opponents. He went to
the Comelec to prevent the impending procalamation
of his rival and alleged that the elections were marred
by massive terrorism, intimidation, duress, vote-
buying, fraud, tampering and falsification of
election returns under duress, threat and
intimidation, snatching of ballot boxes perpetrated
by the armed men of respondent Pacificador.
Election returns of some municipalities were not placed
in the ballot boxes but merely wrapped in cement bags
or Manila paper.
May 18, 1984, 2nd Division Comelec directed to
proceed with the canvas but suspend proclamation of
the winning candidate until further orders.
June 7, 1984, the same division ordered the board to
immediately convene and to proclaim the winner
(SandeeSuan)
without prejudice to the outcome of the case before the
Commission.
The proclamation made by the board of canvassers
was set aside as premature, having been made
before the lapse of the 5-day period of appeal, which
the petitioner had seasonably made.
Finally, on July 23, 1984, the Second Division
proclaimed Arturo F. Pacificador the elected
assemblyman of the province of Antique which was
signed by Chairman Victoriano Savellano and
Commissioners Jaime Opinion and Froilan M.
Bacungan.
ISSUE: WON proclamation of the Respondent
Pacificador as Member of the Batasan of Antique by the
COMELEC Second Division is void
Article XII-C, Sections 2 and 3, of the 1973 Constitution
Section 2 confers on the Commission on Elections the power to:
(2)Be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of all member of the Batasang Pambansa and elective
provincial and city officials.
Section 3 provides:
The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in three divisions.
All election cases may be heard and decided by divisions except
contests involving members of the Batasang Pambansa, which shall
be heard and decided en banc. Unless otherwise provided by law, all
election cases shall be decided within ninety days from the date of
their submission for decision.
PETITIONER JAVIER RESPONDENT PACIFICADOR
- Proclamation is invalid because all - Only contests need to be heard in
contests involving Batasang band and all other cases can be and
Pambansa should be heard by should be decided by division.
Comelec En Banc to insure a more - said that there is a distinction
careful decision, considering the between contests and cases and that
importance of the offices involved the pre-proclamation controversy
was not yet a contest which could
be heard by division
- Contest involve contention
between parties for the same office
which seeks not only to oust but to
be induced into the office
- Since at the time neither of them
was member of the Batasang
Pambansa whose returns be
examined by Comelec.
Comelec was the sole judge of all contests involving
the election, returns and qualifications of the members
of the Batasang Pambansa and elective provincial and
city officials,
The Constitution intended to give it full authority to
hear and decide these cases from beginning to end
and on all matters related thereto, including those
arising before the proclamation of the winners.
Sec. 175, P.D. No. 1296 1978 Election Code
Sec. 175. Suspension and annulment of proclamation.-The Commission
shall be the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies and any
of its decisions, orders or rulings shall be final and executory. It may, motu
proprio or upon written petition, and after due notice and hearing order the
suspension of the proclamation of a candidate-elect or annul any
proclamation, if one has been made, on any of the grounds mentioned in
Sections 172, 173 and 174 thereof.
Contests referring to any matter involving the title or
claim of title to an elective office, made before or
after proclamation of the winner, whether or not the
contestant is claiming the office in dispute
be given the widest possible scope and
interpreted liberally
Page 4 of 5
 included the quo warranto petition that could For refusing to do so, he divested the Second Division
be filed by any voter on the ground of of the necessary vote for the questioned decision.
disloyalty or ineligibility of the contestee
although such voter was himself not claiming
the office involved
Election, returns and qualifications interpreted in
its totality as referring to all matters affecting the
validity of the contestee's title.
Election referred to the conduct of the polls,
including the listing of voters, the holding of the
electoral campaign, and the casting and counting
of the votes;
Returns to the canvass of the returns and the
proclamation of the winners, including questions
concerning the composition of the board of
canvassers and the authenticity of the election
returns
Qualifications to matters that could be raised in a
quo warranto proceeding against the proclaimed
winner, such as his disloyalty or ineligibility or the
inadequacy of his certificate of candidacy.

Sole judge of pre-proclamation controversies in Sec.

175 was referring to body sitting en banc.

Due P rocess

Commissioner Opinion ignored and asked to inhibit

himself on the ground that he was formerly a law
partner of Pacificador, denied he was bias.
Commissioner Opinion's refusal to inhibit himself and
his objection to the transfer of the case to another
division cannot be justified by any criterion of
propriety. His conduct proved the motives of the
Second Division when it rendered its decision.

SC has repeatedly and consistently demanded "the

cold neutrality of an impartial judge" as the
indispensable imperative of due process.
Judge must not only be impartial but must also appear
to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties
that his decision will be just.

Justice Frankfurter rudiments of fair play

Fair play cans for equal justice.
No equal justice when a suitor approaches a court
already committed to the other party and with a
judgment already made and waiting only to be
formalized after the litigants shall have undergone the
charade of a formal hearing.
Judicial (and also extra-judicial) proceedings are not
orchestrated plays. The judge will reach his
conclusions only after all the evidence is in and all the
arguments are filed, on the basis of the established
facts and the pertinent law.

Relationship of the judge and one of the parties may

color the facts and distort the law to the prejudice of
a just decision.

Commissioner Opinion should have recognized his

duty and abided the well-known rule of judicial conduct

(SandeeSuan) Page 5 of 5