You are on page 1of 2

ARTICLE 3 SECTION 1 CASE 8 OF 22 5.

Gov’t of HK filed an urgent motion to vacate the Order but was denied
GOV’T OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMIN REGION v. OLALIA JR. by respondent judge
a. Respondent judge maintained that right to bail guaranteed
DOCTRINE: under Bill of Rights and extends to a prospective extradite due
(State doctrines or terms and definitions that are importance here) to prolonged deprivation of one’s liberty
6. SEC 13 ART 3 of CONSTI: “All persons, except those charged with
IMPORTANT RULING RELATED TO THE PROVISION/DOCTRINE: offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong,
(Court rulings that don’t state doctrines shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
FACTS: Excessive bail shall not be required.”
1. Jan 30, 1995: “Agreement for Surrender of Accused and Convicted
Persons” between PH and HK (took effect June 20) ISSUES: W/N trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting
2. (1997 & 1999) Private Respondent Muñoz: charged before HK Court private respondent to bail CASE REMANDED BUT BAIL ALLOWED
with 3 counts for “accepting an advantage as agent” (bribery) and 7
counts for conspiracy to defraud RULING:
a. DOJ received request for the provisional arrest of respondent 1. MODERN TREND IN PUBLIC INT’L LAW NOW PUTS PRIMACY
b. NBI filed with RTC an application for provisional arrest to ON WORTH OF THE INDIVIDUAL PERSON AND THE
which was issued and NBI arrested and detained him SANCTITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS, PUTTING IN ORDER A
3. Muñoz filed certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application REEXAMINATION OF THE COURT’S RULING IN PURGANAN
for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or writ of HC a. USA GOVT v. PURGANAN: provision on bail only applies
a. CA declared Order of Arrest void (Nov 9, 1999) to criminal and not extradition proceedings.
b. SC reversed CA decision, (final on April 10, 2001) i. Extradition courts do not render judgments of
4. Nov 22, 1999: HKSAR filed petition for extradition of respondent conviction or acquittal
a. Respondent: filed petition for bail in same case ii. Right to bail flows from presumption of innocence in
b. Judge Ricardo Bernardo Jr: “no PH law granted bail in favor of every accused, but presumption of innocence
extradition cases + respondent a high ‘flight risk’” is not an issue at all in extradition
i. Judge later inhibited himself from further hearing b. MEIOFF v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS: principles set forth in
c. MR by Muñoz re application for bail granted by Respondent the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN
Judge subject to following conditions General Assembly are now part of the law of the land
i. Must undertake that he will appear and answer c. + International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights signed
issues raised in these proceedings and will hold and ratified by Philippines
himself amenable to orders and processes of Court i. PH now committed to uphold the fundamental
ii. Surrender his valid passport to this Court human rights as well as value the worth and dignity
iii. DOJ given notice and discretion to file its own motion of every person, further enshrined in Constitution
for hold departure order
iv. Required to report to the govt prosecutors handling 2. THE EXERCISE OF THE STATE’S POWER TO DEPRIVE AN
this case or if they so desire to the nearest office at any INDIVIDUAL OF HIS LIBERTY IS NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED
time and day of the week TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS (admin proceedings)
3. BAIL HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN JURISDICTION TO PERSONS IN
DETENTION DURING PENDENCY OF ADMIN PROCEEDINGS
a. US v. GO-SIOCO: Chinese facing deportation granted bail
i. No reason why bail be granted for deportation cases
but not also allowed in extradition cases
ii. Both admin proceedings where innocence or guilt of
person detained is not in issue.
b. EXTRADITION (PD 1069): “removal of an accused from the
PH, placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to
enable the requesting state/gov’t to hold him in connection
with any criminal investigation directed against him or the
execution of a penalty imposed on him under their penal or
criminal law.”
i. Sui generis, tracing existence to treaty obligations
between different nations (admin proceeding)
ii. Entails a deprivation of liberty for potential extraditee
iii. Means employed to attain the purpose of extradition
is also “the machinery of criminal law”
A. PD 1069 (PH Extradition Law): mandates
“immediate arrest and temporary detention
of accused if such will best serve the interest
of justice;” + release “shall not prejudice re-
arrest and extradition of accused if a request
for extradition is received subsequently.”
a. “TEMPORARY DETENTION” must
be for reasonable length of time, but
private respondent detained for 2 yrs

4. THERE IS NO PROVISION PROHIBITING PERSON FROM


FILING A MOTION FOR BAIL, A RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
a. HOWEVER, standard of DP diff from crim proceedings:
i. CRIM: standard premised on presumption of
innocence
ii. EXTR: standard of “clear and convincing evidence”
that one is not a flight risk and will abide with all
orders and processes in extradition court
A. premise behind arrest/detention based on
assumption that extraditee is a fugitive
B. Burden of proof to show person is NOT a
flight risk and should be granted bail