GOVT OF HK v.

OLALIA

Facts: Private respondent Muoz was charged before Hong Kong Court. Warrants of arrest
were issued and by virtue of a final decree the validity of the Order of Arrest was upheld.
The petitioner Hong Kong Administrative Region filed a petition for the extradition of the
private respondent. In the same case, a petition for bail was filed by the private respondent.
The petition for bail was denied by reason that there was no Philippine law granting the
same in extradition cases and that the respondent was a high flight risk. Private respondent
filed a motion for reconsideration and was granted by the respondent judge. Petitioner filed
a motion to vacate the said order but was denied by the respondent judge. Hence, this
instant petition.

Issue: Whether or not a potential extraditee is entitled to post bail

Held: Yes, a potential extraditee is entitled to bail. In this case, the Court reviewed and
reversed what was held in Government of United States of America v. Hon. Guillermo G. Purganan,
GR No. 153675 April 2007, that the constitutional provision on bail does not apply to
extradition proceedings, the same being available only in criminal proceedings. The Court
took cognizance of the following trends in international law:

(1) the growing importance of the individual person in public international;

(2) the higher value now being given to human rights;

(3) the corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human rights in
fulfilling their treaty obligations; and

(4) the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the individual under our
fundamental law, on one hand, and the law on extradition, on the other.

In light of the recent developments in international law, where emphasis is given to the
worth of the individual and the sanctity of human rights, the Court departed from the ruling
in Purganan, and held that an extraditee may be allowed to post bail.

By: BIGAY, Donnabelle