BAYANI, Flordelyn M.

PIL 2-C

02/19/14 Atty. Yamamoto

Government of HongKong Special Administrative Region represented by DOJ v Olalia, Jr & Munoz FACTS: The Philippines & Hong Kong signed an extradition treaty before HK reverted back to China. Private respondent Munoz was charged before the HK Court w/ bribery charges and conspiracy to defraud, against whom warrants of arrest were issued. DOJ received from HK DOJ a request for the provisional arrest of Munoz, which it forwarded to NBI, which in turn, filed an application for the provisional arrest of Munoz before the Manila RTC. 10 days later, the said court issued an Order of Arrest and Munoz was arrested & detained by the NBI agents. Munoz filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition & mandamus before the CA w/ application for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or writ of habeas corpus, questioning the validity of said Order of Arrest. The court sustained the validity of the Order of Arrest. HK SAR filed w/ the Manila RTC a petition for extradition of Munoz, who in turn, filed a petition for bail. Respondent judge granted such application for bail, set at P750k. Petitioner, after the trial courts denial of its urgent motion to vacate above order, filed the instant petition. It alleged GADALEJ in admitting Munoz to bail where there is no law providing a right to bail to potential extraditees. ISSUE: W/N Munoz, a potential extraditee has a R to bail HELD: YES. While jurisprudence suggests that the constitutional provision on bail does not apply to extradition proceedings, the court took judicial notice of the 1. Growing importance of the individual person in PIL who, in the 20th century, has gradually attained global recognition; as a subject of international law 2. Higher value now being given to human rights in the international sphere; PH adopts UDHR as part of the law of the land; enshrined in UDHR are the rights of every person to life, liberty and due process 3. Corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations; & Ph authorities are under obligation to make available to every person under detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental R of liberty, which necessarily includes the R to bail. under these treaties, the presumption lies in favor of human liberty 4. Duty of the court to balance the rights of the individual under our fundamental law, on on hand, and the law on extradition, on the other.

The court noted that 1. the exercise of the States power to deprive an individual of his liberty is not limited to criminal proceedings and may apply even in administrative proceedings such as deportation & quarantine. 2. To limit bail to criminal proceedings would be to close our eyes to our jurisprudential history. Ph jurisprudence admitted to bail persons who are not involved in criminal proceedings. If bail can be granted in deportation cases, there is no justification in denying it in extradition cases. The court noted how PD 1069 defined extradition as the removal of an accused from the PH with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state/govt 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. It is sui generis, neither criminal for it is not a trial to determine the guilt/innocence of the potential extriditee; nor is it a full-blown civil action. It is administrative in character. But while it is not criminal in nature, it entails a deprivation of liberty on the part of the potential extradite, thru the machinery of criminal law, resulting in the immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused, pending the receipt of the request for extradition. In the case at hand, Munoz had been detained for over 2 years without having been convicted of any crime. Such extended detention is a clear deprivation of his fundamental right to liberty. While our extradition law does not provide a R of bail to an extraditee, there is also no provision prohibiting him/her from filing a motion for bail, a right to due process. The principle of pacta sunt servanda demands that the PH honor its obligations under the Extradition Treaty it entered into w/ petitioner. However, keeping treaty obligations should not diminish potential extraditees R to life, liberty & due process. As long as the potential extriditee is able to prove by clear & convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders & processes of the extradition, he should not be denied bail.