PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO 1069 PRESCRIBING THE PROCEDURE FOR THE EXTRADITION OF PERSONS WHO HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES IN A FOREIGN

COUNTRY WHEREAS, under the Constitution the Philippines 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; WHEREAS, the suppression of crime is the concern not only of the estate where it is committed but also of any other state to which the criminal may have escaped, because it saps the foundation of social life and is an outrage upon humanity at large, and it is in the interest of civilized communities that crimes should not go unpunished; WHEREAS, is recognition of this principle the Philippines recently concluded as extradition treaty with the Republic of Indonesia, and intends to conclude similar treaties with other interested countries; WHEREAS, there is need for rules to guide the executive department and the courts in the proper implementation of the extradition treaties to which the Philippines is a signatory. NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree the following: Section 1. Short-Title. This Decree shall be known as the "Philippine Extradition Law". Section 2. Definition of Terms. When used in this law, the following terms shall, unless the context otherwise indicates, have meanings respectively assigned to them: (a) "Extradition" 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. (b) "Extradition Treaty or Convention" An extradition agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and one or more foreign states or governments. (c) "Accused" The person who is, or is suspected of being, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines, and whose extradition has been requested by a foreign state or government. (d) "Requesting State or Government" The foreign state or government from which the request for extradition has emanated. (e) "Foreign Diplomat" Any authorized diplomatic representative of the requesting state or government and recognized as such by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

(f) "Secretary of Foreign Affairs" The head of the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, or in his absence, any official acting on his behalf or temporarily occupying and discharging the duties of that position. Section 3. Aims of Extradition. Extradition may be granted only pursuant to a treaty or convention, 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; or (b) The execution of a prison sentence imposed by a court of the requesting state or government, with such duration as that stipulated in the relevant extradition treaty or convention, 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. Section 4. Request; By whom made; Requirements. (1) Any foreign state or government with which the Republic of the Philippines has entered into extradition treaty or convention, only when the relevant treaty or convention, remains in force, may request for the extradition of any accused who is or suspected of being in the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. (2) The request shall be made by the Foreign Diplomat of the requesting state or government, addressed to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, 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; 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. (b) A recital of the acts for which extradition is requested, with the fullest particulars as to the name and identity of the accused, his whereabouts in the Philippines, if known, the acts or omissions complained of, and the time and place of the commission of these acts; (c) The text of the applicable law or a statement of the contents of said law, and the designation or description of the offense by the law, sufficient for evaluation of the request; and (d) Such other documents or information in support of the request.

Section 5. Duty of Secretary of Foreign Affairs; Referral of Request: Filing of Petition. (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, he shall forward the request together with the related documents to the Secretary of Justice, who shall immediately designate and authorize an attorney in his office to take charge of these case. (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, with a prayer that the court take the request under consideration and shall attach to the petition all related documents. 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. (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, regardless of the subsequent whereabouts of the accused, or the change or changes of his place of residence. Section 6. Issuance of Summons; Temporary Arrest; Hearing, Service of Notices. (1) Immediately upon receipt of the petition, the presiding judge of the court shall, as soon as practicable, summon the accused to appear and to answer the petition on the day and hour fixed in the order. We may issue a warrant for the immediate arrest of the accused which may 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. Upon receipt of the answer, or should the accused after having received the summons fail to answer within the time fixed, the presiding judge shall hear the ace or set another date for the hearing thereof. (2) The order and notice as well as a copy of the warrant of arrest, if issued, shall be promptly served each upon the accused and the attorney having charge of the case. Section 7. Appointment of Counsel de Oficio. If on the date set for the hearing the accused does not have a legal counsel, 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. Section 8. Hearing in Public; Exception; Legal Representation. (1) The hearing shall be public unless the accused requests, with leave of court, that it be conducted in chamber. (2) The attorney having charge of the case may upon request represent the requesting state or government throughout the proceeding. The requesting state or government may, however, retain private counsel to represent it for particular extradition case. (3) Should the accused fail to appear on the date set for hearing, or if he is not under detention, the court shall forthwith issue a warrant for this arrest which may be served upon the accused anywhere in the Philippines. Section 9. Nature and Conduct of Proceedings. (1) In the hearing, the provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as practicable and not inconsistent with the summary nature of the proceedings,

shall apply to extradition cases. at a time and place to be determined by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. (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. and giving his reasons therefor upon showing of the existence of a prima facie case. Section 17. Section 15. the accused shall be placed at the disposal of the authorities of the requesting state or government. Section 14. and the hearing shall be conducted in such a manner as to arrive as a fair and speedy disposition of the case. The provisions of the Rules of Court governing appeal in criminal cases in the Court of Appeals shall apply in appeal in Extradition cases. after consultation with the Secretary of Justice. and the clerk of the court shall immediately forward two copies thereof to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs through the Department of Justice. Otherwise. Section 16. Application of Rules of Court. the court shall render a decision granting the extradition. and such articles shall be delivered to the foreign diplomat of the requesting state or government who shall issue the corresponding receipt therefor. The decision of the court shall be promptly served on the accused if he was not present at the reading thereof. if there be one. If extradition is granted. Section 12. Concurrent Request for Extradition. 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. the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. In case extradition of the same person has been requested by two or more states. and copies of the former's decision thereon shall promptly be forwarded to the attorney having charge of the case. except that the parties may file typewritten or mimeograph copies of their brief within 15 days from receipt of notice to file such briefs. (2) The appeal shall stay the execution of the decision of the Court of First Instance. Seizure and Turn Over of Accused Properties. Section 10. through the Department of Justice. Appeal by Accused. within 10 days from receipt of the decision of the Court of First Instance granting extradition cases shall be final and immediately executory. through the Department of Justice. Service of Decision of Court of Appeals. Upon conclusion of the hearing. shall each be promptly served with copies of the decision of the Court of Appeals. shall decide which of the several requests shall be first considered. Section 13. Stay of Execution (1) The accused may. . Surrender of Accused. After the decision of the court in an extradition case has become final and executory. Service of Decision. The accused and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Section 11. Decision. it shall dismiss the petition. after consultation with the foreign diplomat of the requesting state or government.

(a) In case of urgency. 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. pursuant to the relevant treaty or convention and while the same remains in force. The Director of the National Bureau of Investigation through the Secretary of Foreign Affairs shall inform the requesting of the result of its request. this Decree shall take effect immediately and its provisions shall be in force during the existence of any extradition treaty or convention with. Manila. Section 21. DONE in the City of Manila . and only in respect of. (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. all costs or expenses incurred in any extradition proceeding and in apprehending. Section 19. Costs and Expenses. the accused shall be released from custody. . Service of Court Processes. the requesting state may. either through the diplomatic channels or direct by post or telegraph. Provisional Arrest. (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 jurisdiction of the place. By Whom Paid. (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.Section 18. 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. any foreign state or government. request for provisional arrest of the accused pending receipt of the request for extradition made in accordance with Section 4 of this Decree. who shall issue the warrant for the provisional arrest of the accused. Section 20. securing and transmitting an accused shall be paid by the requesting state or government. (b) A request for provisional arrest shall be sent to the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation. Effectivity. 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. Except when the relevant extradition treaty provides otherwise. this 13th day of January in the Year of Our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-seven.

IV. There is a need to balance the interest between the discretionary powers of government and the rights of an individual. 2000] SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. 1069. respondents. V. October 17. Regional Trial Court of Manila. the Supreme Court has encroached upon the constitutional boundaries separating it from the other two coequal branches of government. . if considered. VIII. Presiding Judge. 2000. IX. 2000. The deliberate omission of the notice and hearing requirement in the Philippine Extradition Law is intended to prevent flight. by a vote of 9-6. 2000.EN BANC [G. No. we dismissed the petition at bar and ordered the petitioner to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers and to grant him a reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting evidence. the petitioner timely filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. Branch 25. VI. Bail is not a matter of right in proceedings leading to extradition or in extradition proceedings. Jimenez. RESOLUTION PUNO. HON. III. vs. a 58-page Comment was filed by the private respondent Mark B. J. LANTION."ii[2] On March 28. 139465. petitioner.i[1] On February 3. Jimenez is not placed in imminent danger of arrest by the Executive Branch necessitating notice and hearing. VII. II. thus: I. and MARK B. There is a substantial difference between an evaluation process antecedent to the filing of an extradition petition in court and a preliminary investigation. opposing petitioner¶s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. The instances cited in the assailed majority decision when the twin rights of notice and hearing may be dispensed with in this case results in a non sequitur conclusion. would alter the result of the case. By instituting a 'proceeding' not contemplated by PD No.: On January 18. instituting a notice and hearing requirement satisfies no higher objective.R. Absence of notice and hearing during the evaluation process will not result in a denial of fundamental fairness. JIMENEZ. RALPH C. He assails the decision on the following grounds: "The majority decision failed to appreciate the following facts and points of substance and of value which. In the evaluation process.

All treaties. . On August 15. amend.. equality. Thereafter. or should the accused after having received the summons fail to answer within the time fixed. It is well-settled that a "court cannot alter. P. We cannot write a provision in the treaty giving private respondent that right where there is none. 2000. petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Allow Continuation and Maintenance of Action and Filing of Reply. Temporary Arrest. under the Constitution[. Except for the Motion to Allow Continuation and Maintenance of Action.On April 5. the Court denies these pending motions and hereby resolves petitioner's Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. . 1069 which gives an extraditee the right to demand from the petitioner Secretary of Justice copies of the extradition request from the US government and its supporting documents and to comment thereon while the request is still undergoing evaluation. Nothing less than the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to which the Philippines is a signatory provides that "a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose.D. Issuance of Summons. 1069iii[3] which implements the RP-US Extradition Treaty provides the time when an extraditee shall be furnished a copy of the petition for extradition as well as its supporting papers. First.D. upon any motion of equity. a Motion to Expunge from the records petitioner's June 7. 2000 Motion would be granted. after the filing of the petition for extradition in the extradition court. and adheres to the policy of peace. shall be promptly served each upon the accused and the attorney having charge of the case." It is of judicial notice that the summons includes the petition for extradition which will be answered by the extraditee. freedom. 2000 a Manifestation with the attached Note 327/00 from the Embassy of Canada and Note No.(1) Immediately upon receipt of the petition. including the RP-US Extradition Treaty. The jugular issue is whether or not the private respondent is entitled to the due process right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. viz: "WHEREAS. the suppression of crime is the concern not only of the state where it is .D. Upon receipt of the answer. or substantial justice. or integral part of any stipulation. Hearing. or add to a treaty by the insertion of any clause. should be interpreted in light of their intent."iv[4] Second. No. 2000. as soon as practicable. petitioner filed on June 7. WHEREAS. There is no provision in the RP-US Extradition Treaty and in P. summon the accused to appear and to answer the petition on the day and hour fixed in the order . cooperation and amity with all nations. the presiding judge shall hear the case or set another date for the hearing thereof. small or great. viz: "Sec. 34 from the Security Bureau of the Hongkong SAR Government Secretariat. Service of Notices. (2) The order and notice as well as a copy of the warrant of arrest. or dispense with any of its conditions and requirements or take away any qualification. No. the presiding judge of the court shall.] the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. We now hold that private respondent is bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. No. Private respondent also filed on August 18. justice. or general convenience. private respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion for Leave to File Rejoinder in the event that petitioner's April 5. i. 6. 2000.e."v[5] (emphasis supplied) The preambular paragraphs of P. if issued. . 1069 define its intent. 2000 Manifestation with its attached note verbales.

The submission of the private respondent. x x x." Our executive department of government. he held: "It is common in extradition cases to attempt to bring to bear all the factitious niceties of a criminal trial at common law. in recognition of this principle the Philippines recently concluded an extradition treaty with the Republic of Indonesia. In addition. and it is in the interest of civilized communities that crimes should not go unpunished. if there is presented. has steadfastly maintained that the RP-US Extradition Treaty and P. Implicit in the treaties should be the unbending commitment that the perpetrators of these crimes will not be coddled by any signatory state. The rule is recognized that while courts have the power to interpret treaties. . Justice is best served when done without delay..committed but also of any other state to which the criminal may have escaped. even in somewhat untechnical form according to our ideas.vii[7] The reason for the rule is laid down in Santos III v. Third. it deserves the careful consideration of this Court.viii[8] where we stressed that a treaty is a joint executive-legislative act which enjoys the presumption that "it was first carefully studied and determined to be constitutional before it was adopted and given the force of law in the country. It ought to follow that the RP-US Extradition Treaty calls for an interpretation that will minimize if not prevent the escape of extraditees from the long arm of the law and expedite their trial. good faith to the demanding government requires his surrender. countries like the Philippines forge extradition treaties to arrest the dramatic rise of international and transnational crimes like terrorism and drug trafficking. As it comes from the branch of our government in charge of the faithful execution of our laws. and intends to conclude similar treaties with other interested countries. that as a probable extraditee under the RP-US Extradition Treaty he should be furnished a copy of the US government request for his extradition and its supporting documents even while they are still under evaluation by petitioner Secretary of Justice. because it saps the foundation of social life and is an outrage upon humanity at large.ix[9] This understanding of the treaty is shared by . thru the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). No. Extradition treaties provide the assurance that the punishment of these crimes will not be frustrated by the frontiers of territorial sovereignty. An equally compelling factor to consider is the understanding of the parties themselves to the RP-US Extradition Treaty as well as the general interpretation of the issue in question by other countries with similar treaties with the Philippines." (emphasis supplied) It cannot be gainsaid that today."vi[6] (emphasis supplied) We erode no right of an extraditee when we do not allow time to stand still on his prosecution. Northwest Orient Airlines. The foresight of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes did not miss this danger. In 1911. . The fear of the petitioner Secretary of Justice that the demanded notice is equivalent to a notice to flee must be deeply rooted on the experience of the executive branch of our government. the meaning given them by the departments of government particularly charged with their negotiation and enforcement is accorded great weight. 1069 do not grant the private respondent a right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of an extradition process. et al. WHEREAS. does not meet this desideratum.D. it cannot be gainsaid that private respondent¶s demand for advance notice can delay the summary process of executive evaluation of the extradition request and its accompanying papers. But it is a waste of time . such reasonable ground to suppose him guilty as to make it proper that he should be tried.

"xix[19] Finally.xxi[21] As an extradition proceeding is not criminal in character and the evaluation stage in an extradition proceeding is not akin to a preliminary investigation.x[10] This interpretation by the two governments cannot be given scant significance. constitutional rights that are only relevant to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot be invoked by an extraditee especially by one whose extradition papers are still undergoing evaluation. stated in unequivocal language that it is not an international practice to afford a potential extraditee with a copy of the extradition papers during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. Fourth.the US government. Other countries with similar extradition treaties with the Philippines have expressed the same interpretation adopted by the Philippine and US governments. our courts may adjudge an individual extraditable but the President has the final discretion to extradite him.xiii[13] His guilt or innocence will be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be extradited. as a rule. Private respondent. thru appropriate note verbales communicated to our Department of Foreign Affairs. and the constitutional safeguards that accompany a criminal trial in this country do not shield an accused from extradition pursuant to a valid treaty."xxiii[23] Fifth. To begin with. We are not persuaded. in an extradition proceeding. this is not all. unlike in a criminal case where judgment becomes executory upon being rendered final. Hence. It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all the rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. An extradition proceeding is sui generis. Galanis: "An extradition proceeding is not a criminal prosecution. the process of extradition does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused. An extradition proceeding is summary in nature while criminal proceedings involve a full-blown trial. a criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for convictionxviii[18] while a fugitive may be ordered extradited "upon showing of the existence of a prima facie case.xiv[14] As held by the US Supreme Court in United States v. He buttresses his position by likening an extradition proceeding to a criminal proceeding and the evaluation stage to a preliminary investigation.xvii[17] In terms of the quantum of evidence to be satisfied. This we hold for the procedural due process required by a given set of circumstances "must begin with a determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as the private interest that has been affected by governmental action."xv[15] There are other differences between an extradition proceeding and a criminal proceeding.xvi[16] In contradistinction to a criminal proceeding. the rules of evidence in an extradition proceeding allow admission of evidence under less stringent standards. We cannot disregard such a convergence of views unless it is manifestly erroneous.xx[20] The United States adheres to a similar practice whereby the Secretary of State exercises wide discretion in balancing the equities of the case and the demands of the nation's foreign relations before making the ultimate decision to extradite. Yet. Canadianxi[11] and Hongkongxii[12] authorities. the due process safeguards in the latter do not necessarily apply to the former. It will be presumptuous for the Court to assume that both governments did not understand the terms of the treaty they concluded."xxii[22] The concept of due process is flexible for "not all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of procedure. however. peddles the postulate that he must be afforded the right to notice and hearing as required by our Constitution. the other party to the treaty. Private respondent would also impress upon the Court the urgency of his right to notice and hearing considering the alleged threat to his liberty "which may be more priceless .

request for the provisional arrest of the accused. No. who shall issue the warrant for the provisional arrest of the accused.D.. e) a statement of the existence of a warrant of arrest or finding of guilt or judgment of conviction against the person sought. including. pursuant to the relevant treaty or convention and while the same remains in force. if possible. Provisional Arrest. 1069 provides: "Sec. 2. the accused shall be released from custody.than life. (b) A request for provisional arrest shall be sent to the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation. The RP-US Extradition Treaty provides as follows: "PROVISIONAL ARREST 1. 3. either through the diplomatic channels or direct by post or telegraph. The application for provisional arrest shall contain: a) a description of the person sought. 4. (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. Section 20 of P. b) the location of the person sought. c) a brief statement of the facts of the case. the requesting state may. d) a description of the laws violated. No. (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 jurisdiction of the place. The Director of the National Bureau of Investigation through the Secretary of Foreign Affairs shall inform the requesting state of the result of its request. and f) a statement that a request for extradition for the person sought will follow. a Contracting Party may request the provisional arrest of the person sought pending presentation of the request for extradition. Manila. In case of urgency. We first deal with provisional arrest.D. 20. A person who is provisionally arrested may be discharged from custody upon the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date of arrest pursuant to this Treaty if the executive authority of the Requested State has not received the formal request for extradition and the supporting documents required in Article 7. the time and location of the offense. if known." (emphasis supplied) In relation to the above.(a) In case of urgency. 1069 which allow provisional arrest and temporary detention. A request for provisional arrest may be transmitted through the diplomatic channel or directly between the Philippine Department of Justice and the United States Department of Justice. pending receipt of the request for extradition made in accordance with Section 4 of this Decree." (emphasis supplied) . The Requesting State shall be notified without delay of the disposition of its application and the reasons for any denial."xxiv[24] The supposed threat to private respondent¶s liberty is perceived to come from several provisions of the RP-US Extradition Treaty and P.

on one end of the balancing pole is the private respondent¶s claim to due process predicated on Section 1. summon the accused to appear and to answer the petition on the day and hour fixed in the order. the threat to private respondent¶s liberty has passed.Both the RP-US Extradition Treaty and P. . 6.D. collides with important state interests which cannot also be ignored for they serve the interest of the greater majority. Issuance of Summons. His plea to due process. liberty. . the United States has not requested for private respondent¶s provisional arrest. Hearing. As the extradition process is still in the evaluation stage of pertinent documents and there is no certainty that a petition for extradition will be filed in the appropriate extradition court.xxvii[27] In the case at bar. 1069. the nature of the right being claimed by the private respondent is . Temporary Arrest. No. if issued. which provides that "No person shall be deprived of life."xxv[25] The approach requires that we "take conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation or type of situation. Considering that in the case at bar. shall be promptly served each upon the accused and the attorney having charge of the case. as soon as practicable. Our DFA has long received the extradition request from the United States and has turned it over to the DOJ. Petitioner avers that the Court should give more weight to our national commitment under the RP-US Extradition Treaty to expedite the extradition to the United States of persons charged with violation of some of its laws.D. . or property without due process of law . Sixth. Service of Notices. It is undisputed that until today." Without a bubble of doubt.(1) Immediately upon receipt of the petition. which provides: "Sec. . the presiding judge of the court shall."xxvi[26] These interests usually consist in the exercise by an individual of his basic freedoms on the one hand." (emphasis supplied) It is evident from the above provision that a warrant of arrest for the temporary detention of the accused pending the extradition hearing may only be issued by the presiding judge of the extradition court upon filing of the petition for extradition. [H]e may issue a warrant for the immediate arrest of the accused which may be served anywhere 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. 1069 clearly provide that private respondent may be provisionally arrested only pending receipt of the request for extradition.. This brings us to the other end of the balancing pole. Nor can the threat to private respondent¶s liberty come from Section 6 of P. procedural due process of law lies at the foundation of a civilized society which accords paramount importance to justice and fairness. Petitioner also emphasizes the need to defer to the judgment of the Executive on matters relating to foreign affairs in order not to weaken if not violate the principle of separation of powers. the extradition proceeding is only at its evaluation stage. No. private respondent¶s plea for due process deserves serious consideration involving as it does his primordial right to liberty. To be sure. however. (2) The order and notice as well as a copy of the warrant of arrest. It is more imagined than real. It has to be accorded the weight it deserves. Therefore. the threat to private respondent¶s liberty is merely hypothetical. The clash of rights demands a delicate balancing of interests approach which is a "fundamental postulate of constitutional law. and the government¶s promotion of fundamental public interest or policy objectives on the other. Article III of the Constitution.

among others. when it is due. especially transnational crimes. There is no denial of due process as long as fundamental fairness is assured a party. . 1069 which implements the RP-US Extradition Treaty affords an extraditee sufficient opportunity to meet the evidence against him once the petition is filed in court. the Executive. Needless to state."xxviii[28] Under our constitutional scheme. In sum. crimes are becoming the concern of one world. One manifest purpose of this trend towards globalization is to deny easy refuge to a criminal whose activities threaten the peace and progress of civilized countries."xxxiv[34] We have explained why an extraditee has no right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. Laws involving crimes and crime prevention are undergoing universalization. Electoral Commission. which has been endowed by our Constitution with greater power over matters involving our foreign relations. this balance of interests is not a static but a moving balance which can be adjusted as the extradition process moves from the administrative stage to the judicial stage and to the execution stage depending on factors that will come into play. The extraditee's right to know is momentarily withheld during the evaluation stage of the extradition process to accommodate the more compelling interest of the State to prevent escape of potential extraditees which can be precipitated by premature information of the basis of the request for his extradition.xxx[30] The task of safeguarding that these treaties are duly honored devolves upon the executive department which has the competence and authority to so act in the international arena. which in turn depends on the extent to which an individual will be "condemned to suffer grievous loss. In tilting the balance in favor of the interests of the State.xxxii[32] The executive department is aptly accorded deference on matters of foreign relations considering the President¶s most comprehensive and most confidential information about the international scene of which he is regularly briefed by our diplomatic and consular officials.xxxi[31] It is traditionally held that the President has power and even supremacy over the country¶s foreign relations. and the degree of what is due.nebulous and the degree of prejudice he will allegedly suffer is weak. His access to ultra-sensitive military intelligence data is also unlimited. Procedural due process requires a determination of what process is due.D. we rule that the temporary hold on private respondent's privilege of notice and hearing is a soft restraint on his right to due process which will not deprive him of fundamental fairness should he decide to resist the request for his extradition to the United States. a prior determination should be made as to whether procedural protections are at all due and when they are due. The time for the extraditee to know the basis of the request for his extradition is merely moved to the filing in court of the formal petition for extradition. It is to the great interest of the Philippines to be part of this irreversible movement in light of its vulnerability to crimes. executive power is vested in the President of the Philippines. we held that the "Constitution has blocked out with deft strokes and in bold lines.xxix[29] Executive power includes.xxxiii[33] The deference we give to the executive department is dictated by the principle of separation of powers. we accord greater weight to the interests espoused by the government thru the petitioner Secretary of Justice. the power to contract or guarantee foreign loans and the power to enter into treaties or international agreements. In Angara v. Stated otherwise. the legislative and the judicial departments of the government. No less compelling at that stage of the extradition proceedings is the need to be more deferential to the judgment of a co-equal branch of the government. the Court stresses that it is not ruling that the private respondent has no right to due process at all throughout the length and breadth of the extrajudicial proceedings. allotment of power to the executive. The Philippines also has a national interest to help in suppressing crimes and one way to do it is to facilitate the extradition of persons covered by treaties duly entered by our government. No. It cannot be eroded without endangering our government. This principle is one of the cornerstones of our democratic government. More and more. As aforesaid. P.

SO ORDERED. v[5] Article 31(1). 139465. 399. . 1122. 508. 826 (1841). iv[4] Note.. Ct. Bellosillo. I join the dissent of Justice Consuelo Y-Santiago.A. 98. Branch 25 is enjoined from conducting further proceedings in Civil Case No. Rep. 99-94684. Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. 49 S.S. citing Grin v. Oregon. 387. freedom. With the global village shrinking at a rapid pace. JJ. J. January 18.. p. Laubenheimer. concur. J.S. "Prescribing the Procedure for the Extradition of Persons Who Have Committed Crimes in a Foreign Country" signed into law on January 13. Melo.. 295 (1933). The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on August 17. pp.. 276.S. 52. Ct.R. citing The Amiable Isabella. Jr. Ct. citing Nielsen v. Hon.. Ynares-Santiago. Henkel. and De Leon. The Libelants and Claimants of the Schooner Amistad. 1999 is made PERMANENT. The assailed Order issued by the public respondent judge on August 9. See Pierce v. Ed. JJ. Ed. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 47 L. p. 468. Rep. 1274. Quisumbing. 1999 is SET ASIDE. i[1] Rollo. 223. Lantion and Mark B.S. 10 L. Ed.. Kelly.J. WHEREFORE. 261 (1992). 192 (1961). Rollo. C. cooperation and amity with all nations. viii[8] ix[9] 210 SCRA 256. 366 US 187. Crim. 33 S. Gonzaga-Reyes. 1113. 221 U. 57 L. 52 L. 279 U. Purisima. 23 S. Creecy. 46 L. Mendoza. 1. joined the dissent of J.. 945. 130. 210 U. 511 (1911). p. Davide. 610. see separate dissent. Pardo. we need to push further back our horizons and work with the rest of the civilized nations and move closer to the universal goals of "peace.R. A myopic interpretation of the due process clause would not suffice to resolve the conflicting rights in the case at bar. Vitug. Jr. pp. 495. The Decision in the case at bar promulgated on January18. vi[6] Glucksman v.. Factor v. Ed.S. it is the individual who will reap the harvest of peace and prosperity from these efforts."xxxv[35] In the end. Secretary of Justice v. J. 447. in the result. Attorney General and Bruce C. Jimenez. No. see dissent. Johnson. Ralph C. justice. Robinson. 39-40. Shine.We end where we began. Annex ³B´ of petitioner's Urgent Motion for Reconsideration entitled ³Observations of the United States In Support of the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration by the Republic of the Philippines´ signed by James K.) 397. propelled as it is by technological leaps in transportation and communication.1283. 405. 187 US 181. Ed. Melo & J. 467-482. The Regional Trial Court of Manila. Decision. J. x[10] See Original Records.S. and Kapunan. 28 S. J. Charlton v. G. 2000. The United States v. 229 U. ii[2] iii[3] Rollo. Ynares-Santiago. 184. Ct. Buena. the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. 714. 6 Wheat.. 290 U. vii[7] Kolovrat v. 366.. Asst. 2000 is REVERSED. 12 Am. 442-443. 73 L. (N. I join in the dissent and reiterate my separate opinion in the original ponencia. Swartz. 1977. equality. pp. 133. 4.

Kelly. citing Lagunzad v. xxvii[27] Blo Umpar Adiong v.S. 37. 19 Michigan Journal of International Law 729. Director. See also Salazar v. Brewer. Note. xxvi[26] Zaldivar v. 63 Phil. Morrisey v. Purisima. 509. Malayan Insurance Co.C. Sandiganbayan. Martin v. 1743 (1961). p. Criminal Division. 2000 from the Security Bureau of the Hongkong SAR Government Secretariat. quoted in Goldberg v. 90 S. J. 341 U. citing Separate Opinion of the late Chief Justice Castro in Gonzales v.Deputy Asst. v. See Original Records. Atlanta Pen. Note 327/00 dated March 10. 25 L. 207 SCRA 712. xxxiv[34] . p. 262 SCRA 39. Galanis. 993 F. Rule 133. Washington.2d 824 (11th Cir. 353 (1995). 51 Philippine Law Journal 238. Asst. Warden. xxviii[28] xxix[29] xxx[30] xxxi[31] Section 1. xxiii[23] xxiv[24] xxv[25] Morrisey v. Revised Rules of Court. 1069. Section 2. P. (34) in SBCR 1/27 16/80 Pt. Brewer. Achacoso. 78 SCRA 470 (1977). No. citing International Catholic Migration Commission v. 296. v. 81 L. p. 481. pp. 216. Executive Discretion in Extradition. 536 F. xxxii[32] Marcos v. No. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. 190 SCRA 130 (1990). 1215 (D. US Department of Justice and Sara Criscitelli.. Office of International Affairs. 48 (1996). 716 (1992). sections 20-21. Ed. 408 U.D. xvii[17] xviii[18] xix[19] xx[20] xxi[21] xxii[22] Section 10.. 482 (2d Cir. xxxiii[33] U.. Supp. McGrath. et al.S. de Gonzales. 506-507. 18 Suffolk Transnational Law Review 347.S. 304. 481 (1972). National Labor Relations Commission. 429 F. Calleja. No Due Process Right to a Speedy Extradition. 62 Col. Concurring). citing Republic v. xi[11] xii[12] See Original Records. 852. 367 U. Commission on Elections. 1987 Constitution. Procedural Aspects of the Political Offence Doctrine. 177 SCRA 668 (1989). 2d 1230. Ct. p. xiv[14] Elliot. (Phil. citing Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. P. supra note 22. Comment on Petitioner¶s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. citing United States v. See Article III of the RP-US Extradition Treaty. 139.S. 1977). 899 (1960). Manglapus.. 27 dated March 22. 1011 (1970). 471. Bell & Co. Brewer. Ed. citing Jhirad v. 2000 from the Embassy of Canada. 1993). Ed. 1069. citing Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. 886. 258 (1976). D. 1314-1329. Attorney General. 254. 57 S.1 xv[15] Wiehl. p. supra.S. Law Rev. 895 (1961). Extradition Law at the Crossroads: The Trend Toward Extending Greater Constitutional Procedural Protections To Fugitives Fighting Extradition from the United States. 6 L. Commission on Elections. 741 (1998). 157 (1936). xiii[13] Defensor-Santiago. Conn. 123. 71 S. 299 U. Criminal Division. McElroy. 101 SCRA 61 (1980). 27 SCRA 855.D. 9 (1989). Ibid. Morrisey v. 170 SCRA 1..2d 478. 263.). 817. Article VII. 1236. 397 U.) Inc. 255 (1936). Id..S. Smith. xvi[16] Section 9. Ed. Ct. 624 (1951) (Frankfurter. 92 SCRA 476 (1979). 2d 287. Ct. 81 S. 168. pp. Department of Foreign Affairs v. 183 SCRA 145 (1990). 95 L. Vda. Note No. Ct. Ferrandina..

respondent Davide Jr. Represented by the Philippine Department of Justice. MARCIO BATACAN CRESPO. 2002 GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Morales and Callejo. GUILLERMO PURGANAN. DECISION PANGANIBAN. SandovalGutierrez. the answer to these two novel questions is "No.R. vs. Puno. are prospective extraditees entitled to notice and hearing before warrants for their arrest can be issued? Equally important. J. Austria-Martinez. Vitug. Panganiban. 148571 September 24.: In extradition proceedings. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G. as well as the exceptions to. Article II. No. Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court of Manila and MARC JIMENEZ a.. Ynares-Santiago. Sr.k. are they entitled to the right to bail and provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending? In general. petitioner." The explanation of and the reasons for. CJ. The Case . 1987 Constitution. this rule are laid out in this Decision. Mendoza. Corona. Quisumbing. Bellosillo.xxxv[35] Section 2. Carpio.a. HON.

Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Upon learning of the request for his extradition. the appropriate Petition for Extradition which was docketed as Extradition Case No. 9900281 CR-SEITZ: (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit certain offenses in violation of Title 18 US Code Section 371. This Resolution has become final and executory. 1999. represented by the Philippine DOJ. The warrant had been issued in connection with the following charges in Indictment No.by a vote of 9-6 -. the Petition prays for the lifting of the bail Order. supplemented by Note Nos. 2001 1 and July 3.dismissed the Petition. seeking to void and set aside the Orders dated May 23. the Court -. the cancellation of the bond. Jimenez. sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale No. 0720 and 0809 and accompanied by duly authenticated documents requesting the extradition of Mark B. 0597. assailed by the SOJ in a Petition before this Court in the said GR No. on the other hand. through diplomatic channels. the [Court] finds probable cause against respondent Mark Jimenez. that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 15. the Government of the United States of America. Jimenez sought and was granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by the RTC of Manila. Branch 25. 1069. 3 The first assailed Order set for hearing petitioner¶s application for the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of Respondent Mark B. 7 The TRO prohibited the Department of Justice (DOJ) from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition. Furthermore respondent is directed to immediately surrender to this Court his passport and the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation is likewise directed to include the name of the respondent in its Hold Departure List. The second challenged Order. directed the issuance of a warrant. Consequently and taking into consideration Section 9. pursuant to Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the SOJ. 5 Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty. 2001. this Court fixes the reasonable amount of bail for respondent¶s temporary liberty at ONE MILLION PESOS (Php 1. also known as the Extradition Law." 4 Essentially. 0522 dated June 16. this Court issued its October 17. in the light of the foregoing. The Facts This Petition is really a sequel to GR No. It held that private respondent was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. The dispositive portion of the Order reads as follows: WHEREFORE. 6 the United States Government.it reconsidered and reversed its earlier Decision. inter alia. (2) tax evasion.000. The SOJ was ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers and to grant the latter a reasonable period within which to 8 file a comment and supporting evidence. also known as Mario Batacan Crespo.after three justices changed their votes -. Finding no more legal obstacle.000. but at the same time granted bail to Jimenez. Initially. (3) wire . 2000 Resolution. Accordingly let a Warrant for the arrest of the respondent be issued. Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. 139465. Jimenez. 9 By an identical vote of 9-6 -. Ralph C. The validity of the TRO was. Branch 42. 1999. the same to be paid in cash. 2001 2 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents. filed with the RTC on May 18. in violation of Title 26 US Code Section 7201. the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action. Lantion. 139465 entitled Secretary of Justice v. The Petition alleged. however.00). and the taking of Jimenez into legal custody. 01192061.

1069. The public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in adopting a procedure of first hearing a potential extraditee before issuing an arrest warrant under Section 6 of PD No. II. in violation of Title 18 US Code Sections 1343 and 2. The presumption is against bail in extradition proceedings or proceedings leading to extradition. 2001. After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond." 10 which prayed that petitioner¶s application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. cannot be used as bases for allowing bail in extradition proceedings. µ3. In its assailed May 23. the RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez and set the case for hearing on June 5. . the court a quo required the parties to submit their respective memoranda.fraud. petitioner manifested its reservations on the procedure adopted by the trial court allowing the accused in an extradition case to be heard prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. 2001 Order. 441f and 437g(d) and Title 18 US Code Section 2. In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez. in violation of Title 18 US Code Sections 1001 and 2. directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and 11 fixing bail for his temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash. (4) false statements. Before the RTC could act on the Petition. 2001 Order. 2001. 13 Issues Petitioner presents the following issues for the consideration of this Court: I. and (5) illegal campaign contributions. Article III (right to bail clause) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Section 4. in the absence of any law that provides for such power.000. in violation of Title 2 US Code Sections 441b. 1069. An extradition court has no power to authorize bail. In his Memorandum. Jimenez was granted provisional liberty via the challenged Order 12 dated July 4. he be allowed to post bail in the amount of P100. After the hearing. Jimenez sought an alternative prayer: that in case a warrant should issue. Rule 114 (Bail) of the Rules of Court. which [were] relied upon. In that hearing. The public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the prayer for bail and in allowing Jimenez to go on provisional liberty because: µ1. Thereafter. 2001. The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for hearing on June 15. Respondent Jimenez filed before it an "Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion. this Petition. Section 13. the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his "immediate arrest" pursuant to Section 6 of PD No. the court below issued its questioned July 3. as amended. Hence. µ2.

The Hon. µ5.¶" 14 In sum. Assuming that bail is a matter of discretion in extradition proceedings. we shall take up the alleged prematurity of the Petition for Certiorari arising from petitioner¶s failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration in the RTC and to seek relief in the Court of Appeals (CA). On the assumption that bail is available in extradition proceedings or proceedings leading to extradition. RTC. Manila. and no special circumstance exists that will engender a well-founded belief that he will not flee. and (2) whether he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending. and (4) the issues raised are purely of 16 law. the public respondent received no evidence of µspecial circumstances¶ which may justify release on bail. the parties would still bring the matter to this Honorable Court to have the issues resolved once and for all [and] to have a binding precedent that all lower courts ought to follow.R. had been recalled before the issuance of the subject bail orders. The conditions attached to the grant of bail are ineffectual and do not ensure compliance by the Philippines with its obligations under the RP-US Extradition Treaty. Branch 17. SP No. Rodriguez et al. The Court of Appeals Resolution promulgated on May 10. Presiding Judge. unless guided by the decision that this Honorable Court will render in this case." For resorting directly to this Court instead of the CA. which. µ7. µ6. would resolve to grant bail in favor of the potential extraditees and would give them opportunity to flee . and (3) there are pending issues on bail both in the extradition courts and the Court of Appeals. bail is not a matter of right but only of discretion upon clear showing by the applicant of the existence of special circumstances. absent factual and legal basis therefor. Preliminary Matters Alleged Prematurity of Present Petition Petitioner submits the following justifications for not filing a Motion for Reconsideration in the Extradition Court: "(1) the issues were fully considered by such court after requiring the parties to submit their respective memoranda and position papers on the matter and thus. (2) the Honorable Court of Appeals had in one case 17 ruled on the issue by disallowing bail but the court below refused to recognize the decision as a judicial guide and all other courts might likewise adopt the same attitude of refusal. The risk that Jimenez will flee is high. 15 We shall also preliminarily discuss five extradition postulates that will guide us in disposing of the substantive issues. Preliminarily. µ8. petitioner submits the following reasons: "(1) even if the petition is lodged with the Court of Appeals and such appellate court takes cognizance of the issues and decides them. 2001 in the case entitled µEduardo T.µ4. instead of in this Court. vs. relied upon by the public respondent in granting bail. the substantive questions that this Court will address are: (1) whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be issued. as the passage of sufficient time would give Jimenez ample opportunity to escape and avoid extradition. the filing of a reconsideration motion would serve no useful purpose. and (3) the need for relief is extremely urgent. (2) the assailed orders are a patent nullity. 64589. The Court¶s Ruling The Petition is meritorious.¶ CA-G.

a petition for certiorari before a higher court will not prosper unless the inferior court has been given. mandamus. We reiterate what we said in Piczon vs. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court¶s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor. namely: Uy vs. et. which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice. Court of Appeals: µBe it remembered that rules of procedure are but mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. That the Court has the power to set aside its own rules in the higher interests of justice is well23 entrenched in our jurisprudence. This is established policy. or the nature and importance of the issues raised. cause adverse effect on the ability of the Philippines to comply with its obligations under existing extradition treaties. Advincula vs. Moreover. Likewise.. 24 we held as follows: This Court has original jurisdiction. we forego a lengthy disquisition of the proper procedure that should have been taken by the parties involved and proceed directly to the merits of the case. Torres vs.and thus. As we have further stated in Cuaresma: µx x x. In the instant petition. we resolve to take primary jurisdiction over the present petition in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations so as to promptly put an end to the present controversy which. prohibition." 18 As a general rule. through a motion for reconsideration.¶ Pursuant to said judicial policy. the Court has also ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration before availment of the remedy of certiorari is not a sine qua non. x x x requiring the petitioners to file their petition first with the Court of Appeals would only result in a waste of time and money. x x x. and we entertain direct resort to us in cases where special and important reasons or exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the same." . the issues in the present case also involve pure questions of law that are of public interest. This has been the judicial policy to be observed and which has been reiterated in subsequent cases. this Court has suspended its own rules and excepted a particular case from their operation whenever the higher interests of justice so require. has sparked national interest because of the magnitude of the problem created by the issuance of the assailed resolution. (2) when public 19 interest is involved. and.¶ In a number of other exceptional cases. In Fortich v. al. has certain exceptions: (1) when the issue raised is purely of law. Corona we stated: [T]he Supreme Court has the full discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition filed directly [before] it if compelling reasons. Their strict and rigid application. warrant. a chance to correct the errors imputed to it. quo warranto and habeas corpus. clearly and specifically set out in the petition. must always be avoided. or (3) in case of urgency. this Court has allowed a direct invocation of its original jurisdiction to issue writs of 21 22 certiorari when there are special and important reasons therefor. Hence. As a fourth exception. concurrent with that of Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals. over petitions for certiorari. Contreras. Bercero vs. al. when the questions raised are the same as those that have already been squarely argued and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court. a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with. as correctly observed by petitioners. Legaspi. This rule. Time and again. Arranz. 20 Aside from being of this nature. De Guzman. et. though.

Such proceedings constitute a matter of first impression over which there is. Today. Five Postulates of Extradition The substantive issues raised in this case require an interpretation or construction of the treaty and the law on extradition. With the advent of easier and faster means of international travel. crimes are becoming the concern of one world. we cannot afford to be an isolationist state.In the interest of justice and to settle once and for all the important issue of bail in extradition proceedings. the flight of affluent criminals from one country to another for the purpose of committing crime and evading prosecution has become more frequent. From an absence of extradition arrangements flight abroad by the ingenious criminal receives direct encouragement and thus indirectly does the commission of crime itself. Accordingly. easier and faster international travel. . Lantion 33 we explained: The Philippines also has a national interest to help in suppressing crimes and one way to do it is to facilitate the extradition of persons covered by treaties duly entered [into] by our government. extradition treaties are entered into for the purpose of suppressing crime 27 by facilitating the arrest and the custodial transfer 28 of a fugitive 29 from one state to the other. 26 understanding certain postulates of extradition will aid us in properly deciding the issues raised here. governments are adjusting their methods of dealing with criminals and crimes that transcend international boundaries. More and more. We need to cooperate with other states in order to improve our chances of suppressing crime in our own country. 1. especially transnational crimes. One manifest purpose of this trend towards globalization is to deny easy refuge to a criminal whose activities threaten the peace and progress of civilized countries. First. For to the extent that efficient means of detection and the threat of punishment play a significant role in the deterrence of crime within the territorial limits of a State. so the existence of effective extradition arrangements and the consequent certainty of return to the locus delicti commissi play a corresponding role in the deterrence of flight abroad in order to escape the consequence of crime. and an expanding ring of international crimes and criminals. A cardinal rule in the interpretation of a treaty or a law is to ascertain and give effect to its intent. x x x." Indeed. 31 An important practical effect x x x of the recognition of the principle that criminals should be restored to a jurisdiction competent to try and punish them is that the number of criminals seeking refuge abroad will be reduced. Extradition Is a Major Instrument for the Suppression of Crime." 30 It is the only regular system that has been devised to return fugitives to the jurisdiction of a court competent to try them in accordance with municipal and international law." 32 In Secretary v. It is to the great interest of the Philippines to be part of this irreversible movement in light of its vulnerability to crimes. as yet. we deem it best to take cognizance of the present case. "a majority of nations in the world community have come to look upon extradition as the major effective instrument of international co-operation in the suppression of crime. no local jurisprudence to guide lower courts. 25 Since PD 1069 is intended as a guide for the implementation of extradition treaties to which the Philippines is a signatory. in this era of globalization. Laws involving crimes and crime prevention are undergoing universalization.

in extradition which is sui generis -. Lantion. as a rule. . In contradistinction to a criminal proceeding. 36 extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature. the treaty would not have been signed." Given the foregoing.they are not.in a class by itself -. The Proceedings Are Sui Generis Third. 37 Such determination during the extradition proceedings will only result in needless duplication and delay. the rules of evidence in an extradition proceeding allow admission of evidence under less stringent standards. constitutional rights that are only relevant to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot be invoked by an extraditee x x x. The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings in court is only to determine whether the extradition request complies with the Extradition Treaty. The Requesting State Will Accord Due Process to the Accused Second. The United States adheres to a similar practice whereby the Secretary of State exercises wide discretion in balancing the equities of the case and the demands of the nation¶s foreign relations before making the ultimate decision to extradite. Hence. In terms of the quantum of evidence to be satisfied. each other¶s legal system and judicial process. and our legislative branch ratified it. our duly authorized representative¶s signature on an extradition treaty signifies our confidence in the capacity and the 35 willingness of the other state to protect the basic rights of the person sought to be extradited. it is evident that the extradition court is not called upon to ascertain the guilt or the innocence of the person sought to be extradited. all relevant and basic rights in the criminal proceedings that will take place therein. Hence. or would have been directly attacked for its unconstitutionality. an extradition treaty presupposes that both parties thereto have examined. a criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction while a fugitive may be ordered extradited µupon showing of the existence of a prima facie case. 39 4. Extradition is merely a measure of international judicial assistance through which a person charged with or convicted of a crime is restored to a jurisdiction with the best claim to try that person. xxxxxxxxx There are other differences between an extradition proceeding and a criminal proceeding. His guilt or innocence will be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be extradited. our executive branch of government voluntarily entered into the Extradition Treaty. as pointed out in Secretary of Justice v. 3. That signature signifies our full faith that the accused will be given. and whether the person sought is extraditable. 34 More pointedly. It is not part of the function of the assisting 38 authorities to enter into questions that are the prerogative of that jurisdiction. the Treaty carries the presumption that its implementation will serve the national interest. upon extradition to the requesting state.¶ Finally. To begin with.2. It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all the rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. the constitutional rights of the accused are at fore. In criminal proceedings. Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith. our courts may adjudge an individual extraditable but the President has the final discretion to extradite him. and that both accept and trust. An extradition [proceeding] is sui generis. An extradition proceeding is summary in nature while criminal proceedings involve a full-blown trial. otherwise. Fourth. unlike in a criminal case where judgment becomes executory upon being rendered final. the process of extradition does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused. in an extradition proceeding.

may invoke it in future extradition cases. failure to fulfill our obligations thereunder paints a bad image of our country before the world community. It states: 40 . ergo. On the other hand. should it be found proper. extradition hearings would not even begin. the Philippines must be ready and in a position to deliver the accused. what is there to stop him. as set forth in the Treaty. from fleeing a second time? First Substantive Issue: Is Respondent Entitled to Notice and Hearing Before the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest? Petitioner contends that the procedure adopted by the RTC --informing the accused. This prima facie presumption finds 44 reinforcement in the experience of the executive branch: nothing short of confinement can ensure that the accused will not flee the jurisdiction of the requested state in order to thwart their extradition to the requesting state. and the other government is under obligation to make the surrender. given sufficient opportunity. the formulation of that procedure is within the discretion of the presiding judge. persons to be extradited are presumed to be flight risks." 43 Accordingly. is entitled to the delivery of the accused on the issue of the proper warrant. if only the accused were willing to submit to trial in the requesting country. in that those sought to be extradited -. after the petition for extradition has been filed in court. 45 Prior acts of herein respondent -. Having fled once. 41 particularly an extradition treaty that hinges on reciprocity. we are bound by pacta sunt servanda to comply in good faith with our obligations under the 42 Treaty. He further asserts that there is as yet no specific law or rule setting forth the procedure prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. "[t]he demanding government.(1) leaving the requesting state right before the conclusion of his indictment proceedings there. petitioner pleads that such procedure may set a dangerous precedent. are satisfied. 5. and that petitioner is seeking his arrest -gives him notice to escape and to avoid extradition. as well as his predisposition to avoid them at all cost.including terrorists. He has demonstrated that he has the capacity and the will to flee. underlying high risk of flight. Respondent Jimenez argues that he should not be hurriedly and arbitrarily deprived of his constitutional right to liberty without due process. and (2) remaining in the requested state despite learning that the requesting state is seeking his return and that the crimes he is charged with are bailable -eloquently speak of his aversion to the processes in the requesting state. Indeed. Moreover. This principle requires that we deliver the accused to the requesting country if the conditions precedent to extradition. a fugitive from justice. Verily. when it has done all that the treaty and the law require it to do. In other words.Fulfilling our obligations under the Extradition Treaty promotes comity with the requesting state. Both parties cite Section 6 of PD 1069 in support of their arguments. Such failure would discourage other states from entering into treaties with us. mass murderers and war criminals -. that an Extradition Petition has been filed against him. The present extradition case further validates the premise that persons sought to be extradited have a propensity to flee. On the other hand. These circumstances point to an ever-present. There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight Fifth.

with a Certificate of Authentication among others.SEC. [H]e may issue a warrant for the immediate arrest of the accused which may 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. he actually concluded from these supporting documents that "probable cause" did exist. were the following: (1) Annex H. Upon receipt of the answer. if issued. the Exhibit J "Table of Contents for Supplemental Evidentiary Appendix" with enclosed Exhibits 121 to 132. the Exhibit I "Appendix of Witness [excerpts] Statements Referenced in the Affidavit of Angela Byers" and enclosed Statements in two volumes.(1) Immediately upon receipt of the petition. In the second questioned Order. 1. with Exhibits 1 to 120 (duly authenticated exhibits that constituted evidence of the crimes charged in the Indictment). This qualification would be rendered nugatory by setting for hearing the 46 issuance of the arrest warrant. In point of fact. on the whole. 49 It is evident that respondent judge could have already gotten an impression from these records adequate for him to make an initial determination of whether the accused was someone who should immediately be arrested in order to "best serve the ends of justice. uses the word "immediate" to qualify the arrest of the accused." He could have determined whether such facts and circumstances existed as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that the extradition request was prima facie meritorious. the court is expected merely to get a good first impression -. On the Basis of the Extradition Law It is significant to note that Section 6 of PD 1069. the Affidavit executed on May 26. as soon as practicable." The law could not have intended the word as a mere superfluity but. Service of Notices. as a means of imparting a sense of urgency and swiftness in the determination of whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. or should the accused after having received the summons fail to answer within the time fixed. the presiding judge shall hear the case or set another date for the hearing thereof." (Emphasis ours) Does this provision sanction RTC Judge Purganan¶s act of immediately setting for hearing the issuance of a warrant of arrest? We rule in the negative. and giving them time to prepare and present such facts and arguments.sufficient to make a speedy initial determination as regards the arrest and detention of the accused. shall be promptly served each upon the accused and the attorney having charge of the case.. Hearing entails sending notices to the opposing parties. 6.trial attorney in the Campaign Financing Task Force of the Criminal Division of the US Department of Justice. Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no longer be considered "immediate. and (5) Annex MM. Temporary Arrest. immediately upon the filing of the petition. summon the accused to appear and to answer the petition on the day and hour fixed in the order. (2) The order and notice as well as a copy of the warrant of arrest. By using the phrase "if it appears." the law further conveys that accuracy is not as important as speed at such early stage. the presiding judge of the court shall. Michael E. (3) Annex BB. (2) Annexes H to G.a prima facie finding -. he stated: . receiving facts 47 48 and arguments from them. Hearing. From the knowledge and the material then available to it. 1999 by Mr. evidentiary Appendices of various exhibits that constituted evidence of the crimes charged in the Indictment. our Extradition Law. Savage -. the Exhibit L "Appendix of Witness [excerpts] Statements Referenced in the Affidavit of Betty Steward" and enclosed Statements in two volumes. Attached to the Petition for Extradition. Issuance of Summons. (4) Annex GG. The trial court is not expected to make an exhaustive determination to ferret out the true and actual situation.

All we required was that the "judge must have sufficient supporting documents upon . the meaning of a treaty is ambiguous. which is invoked by Jimenez. therefore." We stress that the prima facie existence of probable cause for hearing the petition and. does not require a notice or a hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. the documents sent by the US Government in support of [its] request for extradition of herein respondent are enough to convince the Court of the existence of probable 50 cause to proceed with the hearing against the extraditee. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Evidently. It also bears emphasizing at this point 52 that extradition proceedings are summary in nature. the law specifies that the court sets a hearing upon receipt of the answer or upon failure of the accused to answer after receiving the summons.under oath or affirmation -. In Ho v. Moreover. respondent judge 51 gravely abused his discretion when he set the matter for hearing upon motion of Jimenez. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. however. the word "hearing" is notably absent from the provision. for the very purpose of both would have been defeated by the escape of the accused from the requested state. People 54 and in all the cases cited therein." To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants. It provides: Sec. In connection with the matter of immediate arrest. never was a judge required to go to the extent of conducting a hearing just for the purpose of personally determining probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. 2. after having already determined therefrom that a prima facie finding did exist. It is taken for granted that the contracting parties intend something reasonable and something not inconsistent with generally recognized principles of International Law. Neither the Treaty nor the Law could have intended that consequence. the more reasonable 53 to the less reasonable x x x . 2. papers. a priori.In the instant petition." Verily. houses. Hence. On the Basis of the Constitution Even Section 2 of Article III of our Constitution. had the holding of a hearing at that stage been intended. Hence. the Constitution itself requires only the examination -.of complainants and the witnesses they may produce. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. If. There is no requirement to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest. the silence of the Law and the Treaty leans to the more reasonable interpretation that there is no intention to punctuate with a hearing every little step in the entire proceedings. the reasonable meaning is to be preferred to the unreasonable. nor with previous treaty obligations towards third States. as argued by petitioner. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. the law could have easily so provided. sending to persons sought to be extradited a notice of the request for their arrest and setting it for hearing at some future date would give them ample opportunity to prepare and execute an escape. for issuing an arrest warrant was already evident from the Petition itself and its supporting documents.

They just personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence. That the case under consideration is an extradition and not a criminal action is not sufficient to justify the adoption of a set of procedures more protective of the accused. Prior to the issuance of the warrant. the judge must not inform or notify the potential extraditee of the pendency of the petition. De Leon. Second Substantive Issue: Is Respondent Entitled to Bail? ." 55 In Webb v. If the accused were allowed to be heard and necessarily to present evidence during the prima facie determination for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Since this is a matter of first impression. a prima facie finding whether (a) they are sufficient in form and substance. we deem it wise to restate the proper procedure: Upon receipt of a petition for extradition and its supporting documents. we stress that before issuing warrants of arrest.if he so desires -. In doing so. At his discretion. judges do not conduct a de novo hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. what would stop him from presenting his entire plethora of defenses at this stage -." At most. 56 the Court categorically stated that a judge was not supposed to conduct a hearing before issuing a warrant of arrest: Again.which to make his independent judgment. the foregoing procedure will "best serve the ends of justice" in extradition cases. If. in cases of clear insufficiency of evidence on record. judges merely determine personally the probability. then the magistrate must immediately issue a warrant for the arrest of the extraditee. 57 In the present case. or at the very least. lest the latter be given the opportunity to escape and frustrate the proceedings.not the opposite -. no prima facie finding is possible. This scenario is also anathema to the summary nature of extraditions. On the other hand. as soon as possible. validating the act of respondent judge and instituting the practice of hearing the accused and his witnesses at this early stage would be discordant with the rationale for the entire system.would be justified in view of respondent¶s demonstrated predisposition to flee. the judge may require the submission of further documentation or may personally examine the affiants and 58 witnesses of the petitioner. In our opinion. the judge must study them and make. and (c) the person sought is extraditable. if the presence of a prima facie case is determined. (b) they show compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law. not the certainty of guilt of an accused. If a different procedure were called for at all. upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause. a more restrictive one -.in his effort to negate a prima facie finding? Such a procedure could convert the determination of a prima facie case into a full-blown trial of the entire proceedings and possibly make trial of the main case superfluous. judges merely further examine complainants and their witnesses. in spite of this study and examination. who is at the same time summoned to answer the petition and to appear at scheduled summary hearings. the petition may be dismissed at the discretion of the judge.

Extradition Different from Ordinary Criminal Proceedings We agree with petitioner. where the presumption of innocence is not at issue. On the other hand." Contrary to his contention. before conviction. not before the extradition court. "[n]o one shall be deprived of x x x liberty x x x without due process of law. unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Excessive bail shall not be required." Respondent Mark B. It cannot be taken to mean that the right is available even in extradition proceedings that are not criminal in nature." 61 Hence. as well as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. No Violation of Due Process Respondent Jimenez cites the foreign case Paretti in arguing that. point out that the doctrine does not 62 . It does not apply to extradition proceedings. Moreover. 13. at the same time. including those sought to be extradited. constitutionally. 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. shall.Article III. when evidence of guilt is strong. That the offenses for which Jimenez is sought to be extradited are bailable in the United States is not an argument to grant him one in the present case. We iterate the familiar doctrine that the essence of 63 due process is the opportunity to be heard but. petitioner claims that there is no provision in the Philippine Constitution granting the right to bail to a person who is the subject of an extradition request and arrest warrant. As suggested by the use of the word "conviction. 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. Section 13 of the Constitution. applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. To stress. because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal. He also 59 alleges the relevance to the present case of Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court which. All persons. shall also apply according to Section 9 of PD 1069. 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. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. III. be bailable by sufficient sureties. his detention prior to the conclusion of the extradition proceedings does not amount to a violation of his right to due process." 60 It follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition. insofar as practicable and consistent with the summary nature of extradition proceedings. is worded as follows: Art. Jimenez maintains that this constitutional provision secures the right to bail of all persons. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. Sec. or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. the only exceptions are the ones charged with offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua. extradition proceedings are separate and distinct from the trial for the offenses for which he is charged. He should apply for bail before the courts trying the criminal cases against him. the second sentence in the constitutional provision on bail merely emphasizes the right to bail in criminal proceedings for the aforementioned offenses." the constitutional provision on bail quoted above. Supposedly.

It is "dynamic and resilient. adaptable to every situation calling for its application. Indeed. In the absence of any provision -. But because he left the jurisdiction of the requesting state before those proceedings could be completed. as a general rule. cowards and weaklings who. to apply for bail as an exception to the no-initial-bail rule.expressly guaranteeing the right to bail in extradition proceedings.1âwphi1. there is no violation of his right to due process and fundamental fairness.in the Constitution. we find no arbitrariness. yet. (2) the extradition judge¶s independent prima facie determination that his arrest will best serve the ends of justice before the issuance of a warrant for his arrest. through overprotection or excessively liberal treatment. instead of taking it. it would not be good policy to increase the risk of violating our treaty obligations if. proceedings had already been conducted in that country. would it be proper and just for the government to increase the risk of violating its treaty obligations in order to accord Respondent Jimenez his personal liberty in the span of time that it takes to resolve the Petition for Extradition? His supposed immediate deprivation of liberty without the due process that he had previously shunned pales against the government¶s interest in fulfilling its Extradition Treaty obligations and in cooperating with the world community in the suppression of crime. the due process rights accorded to individuals must be 66 carefully balanced against exigent and palpable government interests. Exceptions to the No Bail Rule The rule. in the immediate deprivation of his liberty prior to his being heard. is that bail is not a matter of right in extradition cases. the law or the treaty -. bail may be applied for and granted 64 . However. His invocation of due process now has thus become hollow. respondent will be given full opportunity to be heard subsequently. and (3) his opportunity. after a potential extraditee has been arrested or placed under the custody of the law. 69 Furthermore. 65 In the present case. we cannot allow our country to be a haven for fugitives. it was hindered from continuing with the due processes prescribed under its laws.nêt The denial of bail as a matter of course in extradition cases falls into place with and gives life to 67 Article 14 of the Treaty. It is also worth noting that before the US government requested the extradition of respondent. Likewise. the judiciary has the constitutional duty to curb grave abuse of discretion 68 and tyranny. Contrary to the contention of Jimenez.call for it. liberty or property" of every person. Hence. we believe that the right to due process is broad enough to include the grant of basic fairness to extraditees." 70 Accordingly and to best serve the ends of justice. He already had that opportunity in the requesting state. their detention pending the resolution of extradition proceedings would fall into place with the emphasis of the Extradition Law on the summary nature of extradition cases and the need for their speedy disposition. we repeat. the right to due process extends to the "life. instead of facing the consequences of their actions. In this light. once he is under the court¶s custody. either.such as those present in an extradition case -. Indeed. as well as the power to promulgate rules to protect and enforce constitutional rights." Too. Where the circumstances -. Hence. persons sought to be extradited are able to evade arrest or escape from our custody. he ran away.always call for a prior opportunity to be heard. when the extradition court hears the Petition for Extradition. would be a step towards deterring fugitives from coming to the Philippines to hide from or evade their prosecutors. choose to run and hide. since this practice would encourage the accused to voluntarily surrender to the requesting state to cut short their detention here. "[c]onstitutional liberties do not exist in a vacuum. we believe and so hold that. adopting the practice of not granting them bail. That his arrest and detention will not be arbitrary is sufficiently ensured by (1) the DOJ¶s filing in court the Petition with its supporting documents after a determination that the extradition request meets the requirements of the law and the relevant treaty. a subsequent opportunity to be heard is enough.

responsibility arising from the presidential power to conduct foreign relations. and (2) that there exist special. In its barest concept. On that basis. The organs of government may not show any undue favoritism or hostility to any person. only upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that. The Constitution guarantees: µx x x nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws. which is not normally a judicial prerogative. the applicant bears the burden of proving the above twotiered requirement with clarity. Does being an elective official result in a substantial distinction that allows different treatment? Is being a Congressman a substantial differentiation which removes the accusedappellant as a prisoner from the same class as all persons validly confined under law? The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly [from] prison. they did so with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action. it partakes of the nature of police assistance amongst states. while this Court is ever protective of "the sporting idea of fair play. so that the vital international and bilateral interests of our country will not be unreasonably impeded or compromised. humanitarian and compelling circumstances 71 including. those cited by the highest court in the requesting state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein. We are not persuaded. Respondent Jimenez was elected as a member of the House of Representatives. Jalosjos. precision and emphatic forcefulness. The accused-appellant is only one of 250 members of the House of Representatives." it also recognizes the limits of its own prerogatives and the need to fulfill international obligations. 1. Alleged Disenfranchisement While his extradition was pending. if voters elect a person with full knowledge that he is suffering from a terminal illness.000 residents. Neither partiality nor prejudice shall be displayed. The accused-appellant asserts that the duty to legislate ranks highest in the hierarchy of government. charged with the duties of legislation. We have carefully examined these circumstances and shall now discuss them. the issue before us boils down to a question of constitutional equal protection. not to mention the 24 members of the Senate.¶ This simply means that all persons similarly situated shall be treated alike both in rights enjoyed and responsibilities imposed. the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community. not a judicial. Since this exception has no express or specific statutory basis.as an exception. The Court realizes that extradition is basically an executive. as a matter of reciprocity. In People v. Jimenez contends that there are special circumstances that are compelling enough for the Court to grant his request for provisional release on bail. he may no longer serve his full term in office. They did so with the knowledge that he could achieve only such legislative results which he could accomplish within the confines of prison. once granted bail. In the ultimate analysis. they do so knowing that at any time. To give a more drastic illustration. the President or . Along this line. and since it is derived essentially from general principles of justice and fairness. Depending on the exigency of Government that has to be addressed. The duties imposed by the µmandate of the people¶ are multifarious. Hence. In short. any intrusion by the courts into the exercise of this power should be characterized by caution. Congress continues to function well in the physical absence of one or a few of its members. he claims that his detention will disenfranchise his Manila district of 600. 72 the Court has already debunked the disenfranchisement argument when it ruled thus: When the voters of his district elected the accused-appellant to Congress.

insidious discriminations are made in favor of or against groups or types of individuals. we are constrained to rule against his claim that his election to public office is by itself a compelling reason to grant him bail. it would be unfair to confine him during the pendency of the case. as he hears the footsteps of the requesting government inching closer and closer. A police officer must maintain peace and order. The importance of a function depends on the need for its exercise. find that election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. unduly delay the proceedings. his constituents were or should have been prepared for the consequences of the extradition case against their representative. The Court cannot validate badges of inequality. Never has the call of a particular duty lifted a prisoner into a different classification from those others who are validly restrained by law." It must be noted that even before private respondent ran for and won a congressional seat in Manila. To support this claim. Hence. if the delay is due to maneuverings of respondent. Thus. The functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift him from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of movement. We must emphasize that extradition cases are summary in nature. in bad faith. 2. Neither is it. yet. he has not actually fled during the preliminary stages of the request for his extradition. Again we are not convinced. any further discussion of this point would be merely anticipatory and academic. Lawful arrest and confinement are germane to the purposes of 73 the law and apply to all those belonging to the same class. An elective governor has to serve provincial constituents. Anticipated Delay Respondent Jimenez further contends that because the extradition proceedings are lengthy.] wittingly or otherwise. We. he has not fled the country. A strict scrutiny of classifications is essential lest[. True. It would also encourage him to stretch out and unreasonably delay the extradition proceedings even more. it was already of public knowledge that the United States was requesting his extradition. That he has not yet fled from the Philippines cannot be . 3. However. this fact cannot be taken to mean that he will not flee as the process moves forward to its conclusion. This is quite another matter that is not at issue here. Premises considered and in line with Jalosjos. Yet. including his detention pending the final resolution of the case. as a rule. A doctor with unique skills has the duty to save the lives of those with a particular affliction. They are resorted to merely to determine whether the extradition petition and its annexes conform to the Extradition Treaty. not to determine guilt or innocence. Giving premium to delay by considering it as a special circumstance for the grant of bail would be tantamount to giving him the power to grant bail to himself. he stresses that he learned of the extradition request in June 1999. with all the more reason would the grant of bail not be justified. We are not overruling the possibility that petitioner may. intended to address issues relevant to the constitutional rights available to the accused in a criminal action. The duty of a mother to nurse her infant is most compelling under the law of nature.the Supreme Court can also be deemed the highest for that particular duty. therefore. The necessities imposed by public welfare may justify exercise of government authority to regulate even if thereby certain groups may plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded. Not a Flight Risk? Jimenez further claims that he is not a flight risk. This we cannot allow.

have bombarded this Court with additional pleadings -. Then. this Decision has taken special cognizance of the rights to due process and fundamental fairness of potential extraditees. Evidently. it has patiently heard them in Oral Arguments. in all his voluminous pleadings and verbal propositions. it is a cop-out. The parties -. In short. As already stated. even after bail has been previously denied. upon the resolution of the Petition for Extradition." We believe that this charge is not only baseless. What is needed is a firm decision on the merits. that. complies with the Extradition Treaty and Law. supported by its annexes and the evidence that may be adduced during the hearing of the petition. The proceedings are intended merely to assist the requesting state in .taken to mean that he will stand his ground and still be within reach of our government if and when it matters. Remanding the case will not solve this utter lack of persuasion and strength in his legal reasoning. a remand will not serve any useful purpose. Separate and Dissenting Opinions written by the learned justices themselves -. but also unfair. Jimenez. the extradition court may continue hearing evidence on the application for bail. it is settled that bail may be applied for and granted by the trial court at anytime after the applicant has been taken into custody and prior to judgment. the Comment. it is now time to summarize and stress these ten points: 1.has exhaustively deliberated and carefully passed upon all relevant questions in this case. the Reply. Rather. In any event. private respondent has not asked for a remand. the inadequacy lies not in the factual presentation of Mr. a procedure not normally observed in the great majority of cases in this Tribunal. it lies in his legal arguments.in which the main topic was Mr. The trial court would again hear factual and evidentiary matters. after the Memos had been submitted.particularly the potential extraditee -. Suffice it to say that. Indeed. however.have been given more than sufficient opportunity both by the trial court and this Court to discuss fully and exhaustively private respondent¶s claim to bail.in particular. Summation As we draw to a close. but also private respondent¶s prayer for temporary liberty. the RTC set for hearing not only petitioner¶s application for an arrest warrant. it will only further delay these already very delayed proceedings. Brief Refutation of Dissents The proposal to remand this case to the extradition court. tedious process would be repeated in its entirety.entitled "Manifestations" by both parties and "CounterManifestation" by private respondent -. Thereafter required by the RTC were memoranda on the arrest. Thus. and whether the person sought is extraditable. Additionally. Moreover. in its length and breath. In the present case. this Court -. is totally unnecessary. even he realizes that there is absolutely no need to rehear factual matters. that is. The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings is to determine whether the request expressed in the petition. 74 which our Extradition Law requires to be summary in character. What we need now is prudent and deliberate speed. both of which were separately filed by the parties. which may be granted in accordance with the guidelines in this Decision. Be it noted. This Court has meticulously pored over the Petition. A remand would mean that this long. the lengthy Memoranda and the Position Papers of both parties. there is also the suggestion that this Court is allegedly "disregarding basic freedoms when a case is one of extradition. not unnecessary and convoluted delay. in fact. we believe. then position papers on the application for bail.as shown by this Decision and the spirited Concurring. Jimenez¶s plea for bail. the parties -. not a circuitous copout. Respondent Jimenez -.

By nature then. If convinced that a prima facie case exists. In extradition cases. delays and "over-due process" every little step of the way. or to personally examine the affiants or witnesses.or the fugitive who has illegally escaped -. humanitarian or compelling circumstances. The grounds used by the highest court in the requesting state for the grant of bail therein may be considered. as well as in the ability and the willingness of the latter to grant basic rights to the accused in the pending criminal case therein. After being taken into custody. The magistrate has discretion to require the petitioner to submit further documentation. the reasonable prima facie presumption is that the person would escape again if given the opportunity. 4. if at all. Immediately upon receipt of the petition for extradition and its supporting documents. Due process does not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard. This Court will always remain a protector of human rights. whether it complies with the Extradition Treaty and Law. 9. to a court¶s request to police authorities for the arrest of the accused who is at large or has escaped detention or jumped bail. responsibility arising out of the presidential power to conduct foreign relations and to implement treaties. We realize that extradition is essentially an executive. they have the burden of showing that (a) there is no flight risk and no danger to the community. 6. Since the applicants have a history of absconding. the Philippines is deemed to have reposed its trust in the reliability or soundness of the legal and judicial system of its treaty partner. A subsequent opportunity is sufficient due to the flight risk involved. Potential extraditees are entitled to the rights to due process and to fundamental fairness. and (b) there exist special. They should not allow contortions. under the principle of reciprocity as a special circumstance. bail is not a matter of right. 8. a bulwark of democracy and the conscience of society. an extradition case is not one in which the constitutional rights of the accused are necessarily available. By entering into an extradition treaty. the judge shall make a prima facie finding whether the petition is sufficient in form and substance. the judge immediately issues a warrant for the arrest of the potential extraditee and summons him or her to answer and to appear at scheduled hearings on the petition. 3. 5. the Executive Department of government has broad discretion in its duty and power of implementation. It is more akin.back to its territory. courts merely perform oversight functions and exercise review authority to prevent or excise grave abuse and tyranny. Indeed. 7. Having once escaped the jurisdiction of the requesting state. available during the hearings on the petition and the answer is the full chance to be heard and to enjoy fundamental fairness that is compatible with the summary nature of extradition. Thus. Worse. so that the criminal process may proceed therein. it is subject to judicial discretion in the context of the peculiar facts of each case. 2. potential extraditees may apply for bail. lest these summary extradition proceedings become not only inutile but also sources of international embarrassment due to our inability to comply in good faith with a treaty partner¶s simple request to return a fugitive. a bastion of liberty. not a judicial. extradition proceedings are not equivalent to a criminal case in which guilt or innocence is determined.bringing the accused -. our country should not be converted into a dubious haven where fugitives and escapees can unreasonably . On the other hand. and whether the person sought is extraditable. Consequently. But it is also well aware of the limitations of its authority and of the need for respect for the prerogatives of the other co-equal and coindependent organs of government.

CORONA Associate Justice . QUISUMBING Associate Justice ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice MA. The bail bond posted by private respondent is CANCELLED. with all deliberate speed pursuant to the spirit and the letter of our Extradition Treaty with the United States as well as our Extradition Law. checkmate and defeat the quest for bilateral justice and international cooperation. BELLOSILLO Associate Justice JOSE C. JR.delay. PUNO Associate Justice VICENTE V. 2001 is SET ASIDE insofar as it granted bail to Respondent Mark Jimenez. mock. Chief Justice JOSUE N. PANGANIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: (signed) HILARIO G. while the challenged Order dated July 3. WHEREFORE. The assailed RTC Order dated May 23. extradition proceedings should be conducted with all deliberate speed to determine compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law. DAVIDE. frustrate. the Petition is GRANTED. ARTEMIO V. VITUG Associate Justice LEONARDO A. to avoid the legalistic contortions. 10. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice REYNATO S. MENDOZA Associate Justice CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice ANTONIO T. and. The Regional Trial Court of Manila is directed to conduct the extradition proceedings before it. mummify. SO ORDERED. CARPIO Associate Justice RENATO C. while safeguarding basic individual rights. delays and technicalities that may negate that purpose. 2001 is hereby declared NULL and VOID. At bottom. No costs.

the fundamental right to bail.xxxv[2] When the great Charter gives a mandate. as well as his right to notice and hearing before being arrested. The Constitution. J. its rejection would be an act of betrayal. DAVIDE. particularly those which are self-executing. No statute or treaty can abrogate or discard its language and its intent. acting in extradition cases. My reservation on the draft ponencia is premised on the following theses ± first. it would ignore constitutional safeguards to which all government action is defined. presents the ultimate yardstick of power and its limitation upon which an act of government is justly measured. and second. This instrument contains a rule for all agencies of the government and any act in opposition thereto can only be struck down as being invalid and without effect.: "The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Article VIII of the Constitution. it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13. JR. is clear. SR. are subject to the parameters set forth in the Constitution. without distinction. HILARIO G."xxxv[1] The proposal to curtail the right of an individual to seek bail from the courts of law. Treaty laws.CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES Associate Justice ROMEO CALLEJO. the government can do no less than to accept it. SEPARATE OPINION VITUG. The edict in its Bill of Rights granting to all persons. brings to mind the not so distant past of the Spanish Inquisition and an uneasy realization that we have yet to totally free ourselves from the grip of a dark page in history. being both a grant and a circumscription of government authority by the sovereign people. have equal stature as national statutes and. it would overstep constitutional restraints on judicial power. . like all other municipal laws.

the evident intendment and spirit of the fundamental law to prevail. is punished by reclusion perpetua. In this regard. to say the least.D. This assumption would have reason for being if it were solely in criminal cases that a person could face an imminent threat of deprivation of his right to life or liberty." Notably. of our Rules of Criminal Procedure is unequivocal --"All persons in custody shall. This obscurity must not be held to negate the right to bail. not much unlike a criminal indictee. Extradition proceedings involve an extended restraint of liberty following arrest. on the contrary. it should be viewed as allowing..' the only exception being when charge is for a capital offense and the court finds that the evidence of guilt is strong. the provisions of the Rules of Court. it can mean protracted proceedings in both the asylum state and the demanding state and a forced transportation in between.. To place the former in a more favored position than the latter would be.xxxv[3] In Herras Teehankee vs. A Constitution does not deal with details. there seems no legal and just reason for denying its benefits to one against whom the proper authorities may not even yet conclude that there exists no sufficient evidence of guilt. but only enunciates general tenets that are intended to apply to all facts that may come about and be brought within its . when evidence of guilt is strong. "Indeed. at the very least.The draft ponencia would assume that the Constitution confines the grant of provisional liberty to criminal cases. a fortiori. without distinction. even those against whom no formal charges are filed. If there is a presumption of innocence in favor of one already formally charged with criminal offenses . all persons. for indeed. except those charged with capital offenses or an offense which. anomalous and absurd. which can even be more severe than an accompanying detention in a single state. shall apply. the precept protects those already charged under a formal complaint or information. under the law at the time of its commission and the time of the application for bail.an extraditee would suffer deprivations. 1. expressly provides that in the hearing of the extradition petition. insofar as practicable and not inconsistent with the summary nature of the proceedings. at a minimum. Section 3. Section 9 thereof). before final conviction. our extradition law (P." Nowhere in the Extradition Treaty with the United States is the grant of bail mentioned but so also it is not prohibited. and that it has no application to extradition proceedings. Rule 114. 1069. it is this threat. this presumption should be indulged in favor of one not yet so charged although arrested and detained. that must be the focus and it would be superficial to think otherwise. for. be entitled to bail as a matter of right. rather than case nomenclature. peculiar to an accused in a criminal case. 'shall before conviction be bailable.xxxv[4] the Court observed that bail is constitutionally available to all persons. While defying a neat definition. be denied his freedom and restricted in his movements. as admitted on all sides. extradition has all the earmarks of a criminal process --." ³x x x xxx xxx "We reiterate now that under the Constitution. Rovira. paragraph. if. whether formally charged or not yet so charged with any criminal offense.

Analogy between extradition process and proceedings where the right to bail is said to be unavailing. but there are innate rights of individuals which no government can negotiate or. are confined to members of the military organization who give consent to its jurisdiction. if authorized. obedience and fitness among the ranksxxxv[7] that cannot obviously be compromised in any sound military establishment. notably American cases.xxxv[6] Resort to overly rigid procedures is being justified as a need to keep in line with our treaty obligations. a speedy resolution of the case being vital in maintaining discipline. be bailable by sufficient sureties. Verily. Proceedings before a military tribunal.xxxv[9] In contrast. The stringent proceedings before such tribunals place emphasis on summary procedures. to belabor the point that the right to bail is extraneous to extradition proceedings. before conviction. particularly of the jurisprudence obtaining in the United States.xxxv[8] Individual states have incorporated into their own state constitutions various versions ± some give it as a matter of right and some do not ± a fact which partially explains the lack of uniformity in state jurisprudence on the matter. whether or not he has complied with the conditions for a continued stay thereat. except for those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua. Deportation proceedings are no more than inquiries and just involve the simple fact of whether or not an alien has an authorized entry within a named country or.xxxv[5] Behind its conciseness is its encompassing inclusiveness. Where some states provide for a constitutional right to bail. comity in our relations with sovereign states is important. it does not expressly provide for the grant of bail.e. upon the other hand. The draft ponencia would rely heavily on foreign jurisprudence. or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. would not at all be apropos. Most importantly. such a person is not considered to be under judicial custody. deportation proceedings and proceedings before a military tribunal. It can truly be said that the real essence of justice does not emanate from quibbling over patchwork but proceeds from its gut consciousness and dynamic role as a brick in the ultimate development of the edifice. the Philippine Constitution strongly and clearly mandates that. Excessive bail shall not be required. bargain away. bail is an undeniable right of every person --"All persons. recognizes merely by implication the right to bail by simply disallowing excessive bail."xxxv[10] Thus. could be predicated on the Eighth Amendment of the US Federal Constitution. It is not skindeep.directions. grappling in this jurisdiction with the compatibility of the grant of bail in extradition proceedings with basic constitutional guarantees has not been and should . The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. This amendment however. let alone. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. The citation. beneath that surface is what gives it real life and meaning. when evidence of guilt is strong.. shall. i. the same is almost invariably viewed as affording a greater right than that provided in the federal charter. A subject found to be illegally staying in a country is merely transported back to his place of origin.

the grant of bail in the United States largely rests on judicial discretion under the umbrella of judicial power. he had made no attempt to flee. I vote to DENY the Petition. Henkel. The rule may appear to be too simplistic but it is the correct approach. let alone commit a grave abuse of discretion. Given the foregoing. III of the Constitution precludes any need for further standards than those explicitly expressed by it. extend that relief. and whatever the special circumstances. where the Court has held: "We are unwilling to hold that the Circuit Courts possess no power in respect of admitting bail other than as specifically vested by statute or that. Absent any standard. The absoluteness of the constitutional grant under Section 13. those courts may not. In Herras Teehankee vs. In In re Mitchel. I would not be comfortable in developing a "special circumstances" standard on the basis of mere pro hac vice pronouncements from elsewhere. the court there caused the release of an extraditee who was charged with larceny by the requesting state based on the assertion that his continued detention rendered him incapable of consulting with his counsel. Director of Prisonsxxxv[17]. .xxxv[15] to cite an example. except for the constitutional limitation that the same be not excessive. Judicial discretion is confined to the issue of whether or not the offense charged is a capital crime and a determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong. The court then added that while he had knowledge for a long time of the extradition. At all events. And so it has been so regarded in Wright v. the trial court did not err. WHEREFORE." Henkel.xxxv[16] But Philippine courts need not really bother borrowing from dicta in foreign jurisdictions.not be a predicament.xxxv[13] it has nevertheless become the forerunner in the judicially-prescribed "special circumstances" standard in deciding whether the bail should be granted or denied. has been criticized to have imposed an amorphous standard and has resulted in an incoherent and inconsistent approach to bail.xxxv[12] While the clamor for its re-examination appears to be getting persistent by the day.xxxv[14] These "special circumstances" vary ± from reasons of ill-health to material prejudice ± depending on the peculiarities of the case. while bail should not ordinarily be granted in cases of foreign extradition. The court was careful to emphasize that it had become imperative for him to obtain advice of counsel because his entire fortune depended upon his doing so. decided by the US Supreme Court in 1903.xxxv[11] the primary case governing access to bail in United States extradition proceedings. in any case. this Court has expressed unqualified acquiescence to the deeply ingrained policy of restraint against unwarranted judicial adventurism that can otherwise easily get out of hand. Article. in the grant of bail to the extraditee.

2002. Corona. 2001" for private respondent and "under date of September 3. WHEREFORE. etc. There is nothing unusual or irregular in its application here. "to exclude" the votes of Justices Ma. etc. The dates of the Oral Argument and the filing of the Memoranda and other pleadings are not decisive with respect to the deliberations and the voting. etc.R. 148571 (Government of the United States of America.R. is a resolution of the Court dated DEC. REPRESENTED BY THE PHILIPPINE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. the prayer -. En Banc Gentlemen: Quoted hereunder. the justices read the pleadings and the transcripts of the Oral Argument. 148571. Atty. Corona. And during the deliberations.) In his "Motion for Leave of Court to File and to Admit Additional Arguments in Support of Motion for Reconsideration" dated November 6. allegedly. "they did not take part in the deliberations" of our September 24. Renato C.[G. The mere fact that the Oral Argument took place on August 14. vs. Hon. December 3. 2002. 3. Guillermo G. GUILLERMO G.. the case "was deemed submitted for resolution [only] on July 3. private respondent -through his new collaborating counsel. inter alia. The participation of newly appointed magistrates in the deliberations and the voting on cases that had already been submitted for resolution prior their appointments is a NORMAL procedure that is applied to ALL cases in this Court. on the ground that. The justices concerned had already been sworn into office and begun discharging their official functions well before the discussions and deliberations took place. Alicia Austria-Martinez. The Motion is based on totally erroneous assumptions. 2001" for petitioner does not mean that deliberations on the final resolution of this case took place on . No. No. for your information. Froilan M. Bacungan . et al. et al.those dates.in private respondent's present Motion -.. In short. All the above-named justices fully participated in the deliberations of this case prior to the final voting. 2001 and the Memoranda of the parties were filed "under date of August 29. HON. read and discussed the other justices' arguments and opinions. Purganan. Alicia Austria Martinez. PURGANAN. 2002 G.to exclude the votes of Justices Ma. etc. Renato C.seeks. 2002] GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. the prayer to exclude the aforementioned justices is utterly and absolutely without factual or legal bases. vs. After all. upon receipt by this Court of respondent's Counter-manifestation" as stated plainly in footnote number 13 of the Decision. they also heard. 2002 Decision. Conchita Carpio Morales and Romeo J. Because of various pleadings thereafter filed. Callejo Sr. Conchita Carpio- . represented by the Philippine Department of Justice.

* Very truly yours.VILLARAMA Acting Clerk of Court . (Sgd. abroad on official business. on leave. The other prayers for the reversal/modification of our Decision shall be ruled upon separately.is unanimously DENIED with finality. Puno. The Court. LUISA D. J. Azcuna.) MA. Callejo Sr. further Resolved to NOTE the Reply to petitioner's comment on the motion for reconsideration. dated 26 November 2002 filed by counsel for respondent Mark B Jimenez. J.. -..Morales and Romeo J.