GOVT. OF HK vs.

OLALIA
G.R. No. 153675 | 19 April 2007

GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL

ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, represented by the HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLALIA, JR., and JUAN ANTONIO MUOZ,
Philippine Department of Justice, vs. respondents
petitioner

NATURE: Special Civil Action in the SC. Certiorari

PONENTE: J. Sandoval-Gutierrez
FACTS:
Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of Rules of CP, as amended, seeking to nullify the 2 Orders of RTC-Manila Branch
8, presided by respondent Judge Olalia, issued in Civil Case No. 99-95773.
-20-DEC-2001: Order allowing private respondent Muoz to post bail;
-10-APR-2002: Order denying the Motion to Vacate the previous order filed by petitioner Govt. of HK, represented by DOJ.
Petition alleges grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as there is no provision in the
Constitution granting bail to a potential extraditee.

30-JAN-1995: RP and HK (then a British Colony) signed an Agreement for the Surrender of
Accused and Convicted Persons, which took effect on 20-JUN-1997. Then HK reverted back to
Peoples Republic of China, and became the HK Special Administrative Region.
Private respondent Muoz was charged before the HK Court with 3 counts of the offense of
accepting an advantage as agent.
13-SEP-1999: DOJ received a request for provision arrest of Muoz, which was then forwarded to
the NBI, and was then filed with the RTC-Manila, Branch 19.
23-SEP-1999: RTC issued an Order of Arrest, NBI arrested and detained Muoz.
14-OCT-1999: Muoz filed with the CA, a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with an
application for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or writ of habeas corpus questioning the
validity of the Order of Arrest.
9-NOV-1999: CA declared the Order of Arrest void.
12-NOV-1999: DOJ filed with SC to reverse CA decision, which was granted sustaining the validity
of the Order of Arrest, and became final and executory on 10-APR-2001.
22-NOV-1999: Petitioner HK filed with RTC-Manila a petition for extradition of Muoz, who then
filed in the same case a petition for bail which was opposed by petitioner.
8-OCT-2001: RTC denied the petition for bail, and held that there is no Philippine law granting bail
in extradition cases, and that Muoz is a high flight risk.
22-OCT-2001: RTC inhibited himself from further hearing the case. It was then raffled off to the
branch presided by respondent judge.
30-OCT-2001: Muoz filed a motion for reconsideration (order for denying bail), which was
granted by respondent judge.
21-DEC-2001: Petitioner HK filed an urgent motion to vacate the above order, but was denied by
respondent judge.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether the Constitution or statutory law provides that a potential extraditee has right to bail
(the right being limited
solely to criminal proceedings)
HELD: Yes. PETITION DISMISSED. Case is REMANDED to the trial court to determine whether Muoz is
entitled
to bail on the basis of clear and convincing evidence.
RATIO:
 The Court affirmed the trends in international law:
o [1] the growing importance of the individual person in public international law who, in the
20th century, has gradually attained global recognition;
o [2] the higher value now being given to human rights in the international sphere;
o [3] the corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human rights in
fulfilling their treaty obligations; and
o [4] the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the individual under our fundamental
law, on one hand, and the law on extradition on the other.
The modern trend in public international law is the primacy placed on the worth of the individual
person and the sanctity of human rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, while not a treaty, the principles contained therein are
now recognized as customarily binding upon the members of the international community.
The Philippines, along with other members, is committed to uphold the fundamental human
rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person; and such is enshrined in Sec. 2, Art.
II of our Constitution. The Philippines, therefore, has the responsibility of protecting and
promoting the right of every person to liberty and due process, i.e., Philippine authorities are
under obligation to make available to every person under detention such remedies which
safeguard their fundamental right to liberty, and such remedies include the right to be admitted
to bail.

In previous cases, the Court has admitted bail to persons not involved in criminal proceedings; in
fact, bail has been allowed to persons in detention during the pendency of administrative
proceedings.

Hence, the Court does not see any justification why bail cannot be granted in extradition cases.
Further, the UDHR applies to deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in
extradition cases. After all, both are administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of
the person detained is not in issue. Thus, the right of a prospective extradite to apply for bail
must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect
for the promotion and protection of human rights.

In his separate opinion in Purganan case, former CJ Puno, proposed that the standard termed as
clear and convincing evidence be used in the granting of bail in extradition cases. Since an
extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of proof required in granting or denying
bail can neither be the following standards: proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases;
proof of preponderance of evidence in civil cases; nor the standard of substantial evidence
used in administrative cases.