Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
* EN BANC.
*
G.R. No. 153675. April 19, 2007.
VOL. 521, APRIL 19, 2007 471
GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs.
ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, represented by the Olalia, Jr.
Philippine Department of Justice, petitioner, vs. HON.
FELIXBERTO T. OLALIA, JR. and JUAN ANTONIO
nificant events show that the individual person is now a valid
MUÑOZ, respondents.
subject of international law.
International Law; Extradition; Jurisprudence on extradition Same; Same; Same; Same; Due Process; Universal
is but in its infancy in this jurisdiction.—Jurisprudence on Declaration of Human Rights; International Covenant on Civil
extradition is but in its infancy in this jurisdiction. Nonetheless, and Political Rights; While on a treaty, the principles contained in
this is not the first time that this Court has an occasion to resolve the said Universal Declaration of Human Rights are now
the question of whether a prospective extraditee may be granted recognized as customarily binding upon the members of the
bail. international community; Fundamental among the rights
enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Same; Same; Bail; Human Rights; The modern trend in Rights are the rights of every person to life, liberty, and due
public international law is the primacy placed on the worth of the process.—On a more positive note, also after World War II, both
individual person and the sanctity of human rights.—At first international organizations and states gave recognition and
glance, the above ruling applies squarely to private respondent’s importance to human rights. Thus, on December 10, 1948, the
case. However, this Court cannot ignore the following trends in United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal
international law: (1) the growing importance of the individual Declaration of Human Rights in which the right to life, liberty
person in public international law who, in the 20th century, has and all the other fundamental rights of every person were
gradually attained global recognition; (2) the higher value now proclaimed. While not a treaty, the principles contained in the
being given to human rights in the international sphere; (3) the said Declaration are now recognized as customarily
corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human binding upon the members of the international
rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations; and (4) the duty of this community. Thus, in Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, 90 Phil. 70
Court to balance the rights of the individual under our (1951), this Court, in granting bail to a prospective
fundamental law, on one hand, and the law on extradition, on the deportee, held that under the Constitution, the principles
other. The modern trend in public international law is the set forth in that Declaration are part of the law of the land.
primacy placed on the worth of the individual person and In 1966, the UN General Assembly also adopted the International
the sanctity of human rights. Slowly, the recognition that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which the Philippines
individual person may properly be a subject of international law signed and ratified. Fundamental among the rights enshrined
is now taking root. The vulnerable doctrine that the subjects of therein are the rights of every person to life, liberty, and due
international law are limited only to states was dramatically process.
eroded towards the second half of the past century. For one, the
Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World War II resulted in the Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; While this Court in
unprecedented spectacle of individual defendants for acts Government of the United States of America v. Purganan, 389
characterized as violations of the laws of war, crimes against SCRA 623 (2002), limited the exercise of the right to bail to
peace, and crimes against humanity. Recently, under the criminal proceedings, however, in light of the various
Nuremberg principle, Serbian leaders have been persecuted for international treaties giving recognition and protection to human
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017544f87131839c738d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/19 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017544f87131839c738d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/19
10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 521 10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 521
rights, particularly the right to life and liberty, a reexamination of not in issue. Clearly, the right of a prospective extraditee to apply
this Court’s ruling in Purganan is in order.—The Philippines, for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the
along with the other members of the family of nations, committed various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect
to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the for the promotion and protection of human rights. Under these
worth and dignity of every person. This commitment is enshrined treaties, the presumption lies in favor of human liberty. Thus, the
in Section II, Article II of our Constitution which provides: “The Philippines should see to it that the right to liberty of every
State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees individual is not impaired.
full respect for human rights.” The Philippines, therefore, has the
responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every Same; Same; Same; Same; Extradition has thus been
person to liberty and due process, ensuring that those characterized as the right of a foreign power, created by treaty, to
demand the surrender of one accused or convicted of a crime
472 within its territorial jurisdiction, and the correlative duty of the
other state to surrender
473
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
detained or arrested can participate in the proceedings before a Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs.
court, to enable it to decide without delay on the legality of the Olalia, Jr.
detention and order their release if justified. In other words, the
Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to him to the demanding state.—Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree
every person under detention such remedies which safeguard (P.D.) No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) defines
their fundamental right to liberty. These remedies include the “extradition” as “the removal of an accused from the Philippines
right to be admitted to bail. While this Court in Purganan limited with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign
the exercise of the right to bail to criminal proceedings, however, authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold
in light of the various international treaties giving recognition him in connection with any criminal investigation directed
and protection to human rights, particularly the right to life and against him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him under
liberty, a reexamination of this Court’s ruling in Purganan is in the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government.”
order. Extradition has thus been characterized as the right of a foreign
power, created by treaty, to demand the surrender of one accused
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; If bail can be granted in or convicted of a crime within its territorial jurisdiction, and the
deportation cases, the Court sees no justification why it should not correlative duty of the other state to surrender him to the
also be allowed in extradition cases—clearly, the right of a demanding state. It is not a criminal proceeding. Even if the
prospective extraditee to apply for bail must be viewed in the light potential extraditee is a criminal, an extradition proceeding is not
of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning by its nature criminal, for it is not punishment for a crime, even
respect for the promotion and protection of human rights.—In though such punishment may follow extradition. It is sui generis,
Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, 90 Phil. 70 (1951) and Chirskoff v. tracing its existence wholly to treaty obligations between different
Commission of Immigration, 90 Phil. 256 A(1951), this Court nations. It is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence
ruled that foreign nationals against whom no formal criminal of the potential extraditee. Nor is it a full-blown civil
charges have been filed may be released on bail pending the action, but one that is merely administrative in character.
finality of an order of deportation. As previously stated, the Court Its object is to prevent the escape of a person accused or convicted
in Mejoff relied upon the Universal declaration of Human Rights of a crime and to secure his return to the state from which he fled,
in sustaining the detainee’s right to bail. If bail can be granted in for the purpose of trial or punishment.
deportation cases, we see no justification why it should not also be
allowed in extradition cases. Likewise, considering that the Same; Same; Same; Same; While extradition is not a criminal
Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to proceeding, it is characterized by the following: (a) it entails a
deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot be deprivation of liberty on the part of the potential extraditee and (b)
invoked in extradition cases. After all, both are administrative the means employed to attain the purpose of extradition is also “the
proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is machinery of criminal law”—obviously, an extradition proceeding,
while ostensibly administrative, bears all earmarks of a criminal Same; Same; Same; Same; Burden of Proof; The applicable
process.—But while extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it is standard of due process, however, should not be the same as that
characterized by the following: (a) it entails a deprivation of in criminal proceedings—in the latter, the standard of due process
liberty on the part of the potential extraditee and (b) the means is premised on the presumption of innocence of the accused, in the
employed to attain the purpose of extradition is also “the former, the assumption is that such extraditee is a fugitive from
machinery of criminal law.” This is shown by Section 6 of P.D. justice; The prospective extraditee thus bears the onus probandi of
No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) which mandates the showing that he or she is not a flight risk and should be granted
“immediate arrest and temporary detention of the bail.—The applicable standard of due process, however, should
accused” if such “will best serve the interest of justice.” We not be the same as that in criminal proceedings. In the latter, the
further note that Section 20 allows the requesting state “in case of standard of due process is premised on the presumption of
urgency” to ask for the “provisional arrest of the accused, innocence of the accused. As Purganan correctly points out, it is
pending receipt of the request for extradition”; and that from this major premise that the ancillary presumption in favor of
release from provisional arrest “shall not prejudice re-arrest and admitting to bail arises. Bearing in mind the purpose of
extradition of the accused if a request for extradition is extradition proceedings, the premise behind the issuance of the
arrest warrant and the “temporary detention” is the possibility of
474
flight of the potential extraditee. This is
475
Same; Same; Same; Same; Standard of Proof; An extradition Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, Manila (presided by
proceeding being sui generis, the standard of proof required in respondent Judge Felixberto T. Olalia, Jr.) issued in Civil
granting or denying bail can neither be the proof beyond Case No. 99–95773. These are: (1) the Order dated
reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of proof of December 20, 2001 allowing Juan Antonio Muñoz, private
preponderance of evidence in civil cases—the potential extraditee respondent, to post bail; and (2) the Order dated April 10,
must prove by “clear and convincing proof” that he is not a flight 2002 denying the motion to vacate the said Order of
risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the December 20, 2001 filed by the Government of Hong Kong
extradition court.—An extradition proceeding being sui generis, Special Administrative Region, represented by the
the standard of proof required in granting or denying bail can Philippine Department of Justice (DOJ), petitioner. The
neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases petition alleges that both Orders were issued by respondent
nor the standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil judge with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
cases. While administrative in character, the standard of excess of jurisdiction as there is no provision in the
substantial evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise Constitution granting bail to a potential extraditee.
apply given the object of extradition law which is to prevent the 477
prospective extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction. In his
Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice, now Chief
Justice VOL. 521, APRIL 19, 2007 477
Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
476 vs. Olalia, Jr.
injunction and/or writ of habeas corpus questioning the VOL. 521, APRIL 19, 2007 479
validity of the Order of Arrest. Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
On November 9, 1999, the Court of Appeals rendered its vs. Olalia, Jr.
Decision declaring the Order of Arrest void.
Court has an occasion to resolve the question of whether a At first glance, the above ruling applies squarely to private
prospective extraditee may be granted bail. respondent’s case. However, this Court cannot ignore the
In Government of United States of America v. Hon. following trends in international law: (1) the growing
Guillermo G. Purganan, Presiding Judge, RTC of Manila, importance of the individual person in public international
Branch1 42, and Mark B. Jimenez, a.k.a. Mario Batacan law who, in the 20th century, has gradually attained global
Crespo, this Court, speaking through then Associate recognition; (2) the higher value now being given to human
Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, later Chief Justice, held rights in the international sphere; (3) the corresponding
that the constitutional provision on bail does not apply to duty of countries to observe these universal human rights
extradition proceedings. It is “available only in criminal in fulfilling their treaty obligations; and (4) the duty of this
proceedings,” thus: Court to balance the rights of the individual under our
fundamental law, on one hand, and the law on extradition,
“x x x. As suggested by the use of the word “conviction,” the on the other.
constitutional provision on bail quoted above, as well as Section 4, The modern trend in public international law is
Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies only when a person has the primacy placed on the worth of the individual
been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal person and the sanctity of human rights. Slowly, the
laws. It does not apply to extradition proceedings because recognition that the individual person may properly be a
extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or subject of international law is now taking root. The
acquittal. vulnerable doctrine that the subjects of international law
Moreover, the constitutional right to bail “flows from the are limited only to states was dramatically eroded towards
presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who should the second half of the past century. For one, the Nuremberg
not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be and Tokyo trials after World War II resulted in the
entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable unprecedented spectacle of individual defendants for acts
doubt” (De la Camara v. Enage, 41 SCRA 1, 6, September 17, characterized as violations of the laws of war, crimes
1971, per Fernando, J., later CJ). It follows that the against peace, and crimes against humanity. Recently,
constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like under the Nuremberg principle, Serbian leaders have been
extradition, where the presumption of innocence is not at issue. persecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity
The provision in the Constitution stating that the “right to bail committed in the former Yugoslavia. These significant
shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of events show that the individual person is now a valid
habeas corpus is suspended” does not detract from the rule that subject of international law.
the constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal On a more positive note, also after World War II, both
proceedings. It must be noted that the suspension of the privilege international organizations and states gave recognition and
of the writ of habeas corpus finds application “only to persons importance to human rights. Thus, on December 10, 1948,
judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly the United Nations General Assembly adopted the
connected with invasion” (Sec. 18, Art. VIII, Constitution). Hence, Universal Declaration of Human Rights in which the right
the second sentence in the constitutional provision on bail merely to life, liberty and all the other fundamental rights of every
emphasizes the right to bail in criminal proceedings for the person were proclaimed. While not a treaty, the
aforementioned offenses. It can principles contained in
482
_______________
1 G.R. No. 148571, September 24, 2002, 389 SCRA 623, 664.
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
481 Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
vs. Olalia, Jr.
VOL. 521, APRIL 19, 2007 481
the said Declaration are now recognized as
Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
vs. Olalia, Jr. customarily binding upon the members of the
international
2
community. Thus, in Mejoff v. Director of
Prisons, this Court, in granting bail to a prospective
not be taken to mean that the right is available even in
deportee, held that under the Constitution,3 the
extradition proceedings that are not criminal in nature.”
principles set forth in that Declaration are part of
the law of the land. In 1966, the UN General Assembly
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017544f87131839c738d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/19 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017544f87131839c738d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/19
10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 521 10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 521
also adopted the International Covenant on Civil and bail to criminal proceedings only. This Court has admitted
Political Rights which the Philippines signed and ratified. to bail persons who are not involved in criminal
Fundamental among the rights enshrined therein are the proceedings. In fact, bail has been allowed in this
rights of every person to life, liberty, and due process. jurisdiction to persons in detention during the
The Philippines, along with the other members of the pendency of administrative proceedings, taking into
family of nations, committed to uphold the fundamental cognizance the obligation of the Philippines under
human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of international conventions to uphold 5
human rights.
every person. This commitment is enshrined in Section II, The 1909 case of US v. Go-Sioco is illustrative. In this
Article II of our Constitution which provides: “The State case, a Chinese facing deportation for failure to secure
values the dignity of every human person and guarantees the necessary certificate of registration was granted bail
full respect for human rights.” The Philippines, therefore, pending his appeal. After noting that the prospective
has the responsibility of protecting and promoting the right deportee had committed no crime, the Court opined that
of every person to liberty and due process, ensuring that “To refuse him bail is to treat him as a person who has
those detained or arrested can participate in the committed the most serious crime known to law”; and that
proceedings before a court, to enable it to decide without while deportation is not a criminal proceeding, some of the
delay on the legality of the detention and order their machinery used “is the machinery of criminal law.” Thus,
release if justified. In other words, the Philippine the provisions relating to bail was applied to deportation
authorities are under obligation to make available to every proceedings. 6
person under detention such remedies which safeguard In Mejoff v. Director of7 Prisons and Chirskoff v.
their fundamental right to liberty. These remedies include Commission of Immigration, this Court ruled that foreign
the right to be admitted to bail. While this Court in nationals
Purganan limited the exercise of the right to bail to
criminal proceedings, however, in light of the various _______________
international treaties giving recognition and protection to
human rights, particularly the 4 In cases involving quarantine to prevent the spread of communicable
diseases, bail is not available. See State v. Hutchinson, 18 So.2d. 723, 246
Ala. 48; Varholy v. Sweat, 15 So.2d. 267, 153 Fla. 571, Baker v. Strautz, 54
_______________
NE2d. 441, 386 lll. 360.
2 90 Phil. 70 (1951). 5 12 Phil. 490 (1909).
3 Sec. 2, Art. II states “The Philippines renounces war as an instrument 6 Supra, footnote 2.
of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of 7 90 Phil. 256 (1951).
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 484
nations.”
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
483
Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
vs. Olalia, Jr.
VOL. 521, APRIL 19, 2007 483
Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region against whom no formal criminal charges have been filed
vs. Olalia, Jr. may be released on bail pending the finality of an order of
deportation. As previously stated, the Court in Mejoff relied
right to life and liberty, a reexamination of this Court’s upon the Universal declaration of Human Rights in
ruling in Purganan is in order. sustaining the detainee’s right to bail.
First, we note that the exercise of the State’s power to If bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no
deprive an individual of his liberty is not necessarily justification why it should not also be allowed in
limited to criminal proceedings. Respondents in extradition cases. Likewise, considering that the
administrative4
proceedings, such as deportation and Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to
quarantine, have likewise been detained. deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot
Second, to limit bail to criminal proceedings would be to be invoked in extradition cases.
close our eyes to our jurisprudential history. Philippine After all, both are administrative proceedings where the
jurisprudence has not limited the exercise of the right to innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017544f87131839c738d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/19 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017544f87131839c738d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/19
10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 521 10/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 521
Clearly, the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for is also “the machinery of criminal law.” This is shown
bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the by Section 6 of P.D. No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition
various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning Law) which mandates the “immediate arrest and
respect for the promotion and protection of human rights. temporary detention of the accused” if such “will best
Under these treaties, the presumption lies in favor of serve the interest of justice.” We further note that Section
human liberty. Thus, the Philippines should see to it that 20 allows the requesting state “in case of urgency” to ask
the right to liberty of every individual is not impaired. for the “provisional arrest of the accused, pending
Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1069 (The receipt of the request for extradition”; and that
Philippine Extradition Law) defines “extradition” as “the release from provisional
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 v. Williams, 46 F2d. 40; US v. Godwin, 97 F. Supp. 252, affd. 191 F2d.
him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him under the 932; Dominguez v. State, 234 SW 701, 90 Tex. Crim. 92.
penal or criminal law of the requesting state or 9 Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, October 17, 2000,
government.” 343 SCRA 377.
Extradition has thus been characterized as the right of a 10 US ex rel Oppenheim v. Hecht, 16 F2d. 955, cert den. 273 US 969, 71
foreign power, created by treaty, to demand the surrender L. Ed. 883, 47 S. Ct. 572.
of one accused or convicted of a crime within its territorial 11 State v. Chase, 107 So. 541, 91 Fla. 413; State v. Quigg, 108 So. 409,
jurisdiction, and the correlative duty of 8
the other state to 91 Fla. 197.
surrender him to the demanding state. It is not a criminal 12 Benson v. McMahon, 127 US 457, 32 L. Ed. 234, 8 S. Ct. 1240;
proceed- Jimenez v. Aristequieta, 311 F2d. 547, stay den. 314 F2d. 649.
13 Spatola v. US, 741 F. Supp. 362, Affd. 925 F2d. 615.
_______________ 14 Re Henderson, 145 NW 574, 27 ND 155; State ex rel Tresoder v.
Remann, 4 P2d. 866, 165 Wash. 92.
8 Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 US 276, 78 L. Ed. 315, 54 S. Ct. 101;
Terlindon v. Ames, 184 US 270, 46 L.Ed. 534, 22 S.Ct. 484; Fong Yue Ting 486
v. US, 149 US 698, 37 L.Ed. 905, 13 S.Ct. 1016; Fitzpatrick
deprivation of liberty which prompted the extradition court cases cannot likewise apply given the object of extradition
to grant him bail. law which is to prevent the prospective extraditee from
While our extradition law does not provide for the grant fleeing our jurisdiction. In his Separate Opinion in
of bail to an extraditee, however, there is no provision Purganan, then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice
prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard which he
to due process under the Constitution. termed “clear and convincing evidence” should be
The applicable standard of due process, however, should used in granting bail in extradition cases. According
not be the same as that in criminal proceedings. In the to him, this standard should be lower than proof beyond
latter, the standard of due process is premised on the reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of
presumption of innocence of the accused. As Purganan evidence. The potential extraditee must prove by “clear and
correctly points out, it is from this major premise that the convincing evidence” that he is not a flight risk and will
ancillary presumption in favor of admitting to bail arises. abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition
Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings, the court.
premise behind the issuance of the arrest warrant and the In this case, there is no showing that private respondent
“temporary detention” is the possibility of flight of the presented evidence to show that he is not a flight risk.
potential extraditee. This is based on the assumption
15
that Consequently, this case should be remanded to the trial
such extraditee is a fugitive from justice. Given the court to
foregoing, the prospective extraditee thus
488
_______________
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
15 Beaulieu v. Hartigan, 554 F.2d 1.
Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
487 vs. Olalia, Jr.
——o0o——
489
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017544f87131839c738d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/19