ARTICLE 3 SECTION 1 CASE 8 OF 22
Gov’t of HK filed an urgent motion to vacate the Order but was denied
GOV’T OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMIN REGION v. OLALIA JR.
DOCTRINE:
(State doctrines or terms and definitions that are importance here)
IMPORTANT RULING RELATED TO THE PROVISION/DOCTRINE:
(Court rulings that don’t state doctrines
FACTS:
1. Jan 30, 1995: “Agreement for Surrender of Accused and Convicted
Persons” between PH and HK (took effect June 20)
2. (1997 & 1999) Private Respondent Muñoz: charged before HK Court
with 3 counts for “accepting an advantage as agent” (bribery) and 7
counts for conspiracy to defraud
a. DOJ received request for the provisional arrest of respondent
b. NBI filed with RTC an application for provisional arrest to
which was issued and NBI arrested and detained him
3. Muñoz filed certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application
for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or writ of HC
a. CA declared Order of Arrest void (Nov 9, 1999)
b. SC reversed CA decision, (final on April 10, 2001)
4. Nov 22, 1999: HKSAR filed petition for extradition of respondent
a. Respondent: filed petition for bail in same case
b. Judge Ricardo Bernardo Jr: “no PH law granted bail in
extradition cases + respondent a high ‘flight risk’”
i. Judge later inhibited himself from further hearing
c. MR by Muñoz re application for bail granted by Respondent
Judge subject to following conditions
i. Must undertake that he will appear and answer
issues raised in these proceedings and will hold
himself amenable to orders and processes of Court
ii. Surrender his valid passport to this Court
iii. DOJ given notice and discretion to file its own motion
for hold departure order
iv. Required to report to the govt prosecutors handling
this case or if they so desire to the nearest office at any
time and day of the week
5.
by respondent judge
a. Respondent judge maintained that right to bail guaranteed
under Bill of Rights and extends to a prospective extradite due
to prolonged deprivation of one’s liberty
6. SEC 13 ART 3 of CONSTI: “All persons, except those charged with
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong,
shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required.”
ISSUES: W/N trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting
private respondent to bail CASE REMANDED BUT BAIL ALLOWED
RULING:
1. MODERN TREND IN PUBLIC INT’L LAW NOW PUTS PRIMACY
ON WORTH OF THE INDIVIDUAL PERSON AND THE
SANCTITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS, PUTTING IN ORDER A
REEXAMINATION OF THE COURT’S RULING IN PURGANAN
a. USA GOVT v. PURGANAN: provision on bail only applies
to criminal and not extradition proceedings.
i. Extradition courts do not render judgments of
conviction or acquittal
ii. Right to bail flows from presumption of innocence in
favor of every accused, but presumption of innocence
is not an issue at all in extradition
b. MEIOFF v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS: principles set forth in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN
General Assembly are now part of the law of the land
c. + International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights signed
and ratified by Philippines
i. PH now committed to uphold the fundamental
human rights as well as value the worth and dignity
of every person, further enshrined in Constitution
2. THE EXERCISE OF THE STATE’S POWER TO DEPRIVE AN
INDIVIDUAL OF HIS LIBERTY IS NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED
TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS (admin proceedings)
3. BAIL HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN JURISDICTION TO PERSONS IN
DETENTION DURING PENDENCY OF ADMIN PROCEEDINGS
a. US v. GO-SIOCO: Chinese facing deportation granted bail
i. No reason why bail be granted for deportation cases
but not also allowed in extradition cases
ii. Both admin proceedings where innocence or guilt of
person detained is not in issue.
b. EXTRADITION (PD 1069): “removal of an accused from the
PH, placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to
enable the requesting state/gov’t to hold him in connection
with any criminal investigation directed against him or the
execution of a penalty imposed on him under their penal or
criminal law.”
i. Sui generis, tracing existence to treaty obligations
between different nations (admin proceeding)
ii. Entails a deprivation of liberty for potential extraditee
iii. Means employed to attain the purpose of extradition
is also “the machinery of criminal law”
A. PD 1069 (PH Extradition Law): mandates
“immediate arrest and temporary detention
of accused if such will best serve the interest
of justice;” + release “shall not prejudice re-
arrest and extradition of accused if a request
for extradition is received subsequently.”
a. “TEMPORARY DETENTION” must
be for reasonable length of time, but
private respondent detained for 2 yrs

4. THERE IS NO PROVISION PROHIBITING PERSON FROM

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