470 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,
Jr.
*
G.R.No.153675.April19,2007.

GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL

ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, represented by the Philippine
Department of Justice, petitioner, vs. HON. FELIXBERTO T.
OLALIA,JR.andJUANANTONIOMUOZ,respondents.

InternationalLawExtraditionJurisprudence on extradition is but in

its infancy in this jurisdiction.Jurisprudence on extradition is but in its
infancy in this jurisdiction. Nonetheless, this is not the first time that this
Court has an occasion to resolve the question of whether a prospective
extraditeemaybegrantedbail.

Same Same Bail Human Rights The modern trend in public

internationallawistheprimacyplacedontheworthoftheindividualperson
andthesanctityofhumanrights.At first glance, the above ruling applies
squarelytoprivaterespondentscase.However,thisCourtcannotignorethe
following trends in international law: (1) the growing importance of the
individual person in public international law who, in the 20th century, has
graduallyattainedglobalrecognition(2)thehighervaluenowbeinggivento
human rights in the international sphere (3) the corresponding duty of
countries to observe these universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty
obligations and (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,ontheother.Themoderntrendinpublicinternationallawis
the primacy placed on the worth of the individual person and the
sanctityofhumanrights.Slowly,therecognitionthattheindividualperson
may properly be a subject of international law is now taking root. The
vulnerable doctrine that the subjects of international law are limited only to
states was dramatically eroded towards the second half of the past century.
Forone,theNurembergandTokyotrialsafterWorldWarIIresultedinthe
unprecedented spectacle of individual defendants for acts characterized as
violations of the laws of war, crimes against peace, and crimes against
humanity. Recently, under the Nuremberg principle, Serbian leaders have
been persecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in
theformerYugoslavia.Thesesig
_______________

*ENBANC.

471

VOL.521,APRIL19,2007 471

GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,Jr.

nificant events show that the individual person is now a valid subject of
internationallaw.

Same Same Same Same Due Process Universal Declaration of

HumanRightsInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRightsWhile
on a treaty, the principles contained in the said Universal Declaration of
HumanRightsarenowrecognizedascustomarilybindinguponthemembers
oftheinternationalcommunityFundamentalamongtherightsenshrinedin
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are the rights of
everypersontolife,liberty,anddueprocess.Onamorepositivenote,also
after World War II, both international organizations and states gave
recognition and importance to human rights. Thus, on December 10, 1948,
the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of
HumanRightsinwhichtherighttolife,libertyandalltheotherfundamental
rights of every person were proclaimed. While not a treaty, theprinciples
contained in the said Declaration are now recognized as customarily
binding upon the members of the international community. Thus, in
Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, 90 Phil. 70 (1951), this Court, in granting
bail to a prospective deportee, held that under the Constitution, the
principlessetforthinthatDeclarationarepartofthelawoftheland.In
1966,theUNGeneralAssemblyalsoadoptedtheInternationalCovenanton
Civil and Political Rights which the Philippines signed and ratified.
Fundamental among the rights enshrined therein are the rights of every
persontolife,liberty,anddueprocess.

SameSame Same Same Same While this Court in Government of

theUnitedStatesofAmericav.Purganan,389SCRA623(2002),limitedthe
exerciseoftherighttobailtocriminalproceedings,however,inlightofthe
various international treaties giving recognition and protection to human
rights, particularly the right to life and liberty, a reexamination of this
Courts ruling in Purganan is in order.The Philippines, along with the
other members of the family of nations, committed to uphold the
fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every
person. This commitment is enshrined in Section II, Article II of our
Constitution which provides: The State values the dignity of every human
person and guarantees full respect for human rights. The Philippines,
therefore, has the responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of
everypersontolibertyanddueprocess,ensuringthatthose

472

472 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,Jr.

detained or arrested can participate in the proceedings before a court, to

enable it to decide without delay on the legality of the detention and order
theirreleaseifjustified.Inotherwords,thePhilippineauthoritiesareunder
obligation to make available to every person under detention such remedies
which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. These remedies include
the right to be admitted to bail. While this Court in Purganan limited the
exerciseoftherighttobailtocriminalproceedings,however,inlightofthe
various international treaties giving recognition and protection to human
rights, particularly the right to life and liberty, a reexamination of this
CourtsrulinginPurgananisinorder.

SameSameSameSameSameIfbailcanbegrantedindeportation
cases, the Court sees no justification why it should not also be allowed in
extradition casesclearly, the right of a prospective extraditee 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.InMejoffv.DirectorofPrisons, 90 Phil. 70 (1951) and Chirskoff
v.CommissionofImmigration, 90 Phil. 256 A(1951), this Court ruled that
foreign nationals against whom no formal criminal charges have been filed
may be released on bail pending the finality of an order of deportation. As
previously stated, the Court in Mejoff relied upon the Universal declaration
of Human Rights in sustaining the detainees right to bail. If bail can be
granted in deportation cases, we see no justification why it should not also
be allowed in extradition cases. Likewise, considering that the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation cases, there is no
reasonwhyitcannotbeinvokedinextraditioncases. After all, both are
administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person
detainedisnotinissue.Clearly,therightofaprospectiveextraditeetoapply
forbailinthisjurisdictionmustbeviewedinthelightofthevarioustreaty
obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and
protection of human rights. Under these treaties, the presumption lies in
favorofhumanliberty.Thus,thePhilippinesshouldseetoitthattherightto
libertyofeveryindividualisnotimpaired.

SameSameSameSameExtradition has thus been characterized as

the right of a foreign power, created by treaty, to demand the surrender of
one accused or convicted of a crime within its territorial jurisdiction, and
thecorrelativedutyoftheotherstatetosurrender
 473

VOL.521,APRIL19,2007 473

GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,Jr.

himtothedemandingstate.Section2(a)ofPresidentialDecree(P.D.)No.
1069(ThePhilippineExtraditionLaw)definesextraditionastheremoval
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
himortheexecutionofapenaltyimposedonhimunderthepenalorcriminal
law of the requesting state or government. Extradition has thus been
characterizedastherightofaforeignpower,createdbytreaty,todemandthe
surrender of one accused or convicted of a crime within its territorial
jurisdiction,andthecorrelativedutyoftheotherstatetosurrenderhimtothe
demanding state. It is not a criminal proceeding. Even if the potential
extraditee is a criminal, an extradition proceeding is not by its nature
criminal,foritisnotpunishmentforacrime,eventhoughsuchpunishment
may follow extradition. It is sui generis, tracing its existence wholly to
treaty obligations between different nations. It is not a trial to determine
the guilt or innocence of the potential extraditee. Nor is it a fullblown
civilaction,butonethatismerelyadministrativeincharacter.Itsobject
is to prevent the escape of a person accused or convicted of a crime and to
securehisreturntothestatefromwhichhefled,forthepurposeoftrialor
punishment.

Same Same Same Same While extradition is not a criminal

proceeding,itischaracterizedbythefollowing:(a)itentailsadeprivation
oflibertyonthepartofthepotentialextraditeeand(b)themeansemployed
to attain the purpose of extradition is also the machinery of criminal
lawobviously,anextraditionproceeding,whileostensiblyadministrative,
bears all earmarks of a criminal process.But while extradition is not a
criminal proceeding, it is characterized by the following: (a) it entails a
deprivation of liberty on the part of the potential extraditee and (b) the
means employed to attain the purpose of extradition is also the
machineryofcriminallaw.ThisisshownbySection6ofP.D.No.1069
(The Philippine Extradition Law) which mandates the immediate arrest
and temporary detention of the accused if such will best serve the
interest of justice. We further note that Section 20 allows the requesting
stateincaseofurgencytoaskfortheprovisionalarrestoftheaccused,
pending receipt of the request for extradition and that release from
provisionalarrestshallnotprejudicerearrestandextraditionoftheaccused
ifarequestforextraditionis

474
474 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,Jr.

received subsequently. Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while

ostensibly administrative, bears all earmarks of a criminal process. A
potentialextraditeemaybesubjectedtoarrest,toaprolongedrestraint
of liberty, and forced to transfer to the demanding state following the
proceedings.Temporarydetentionmaybeanecessarystepintheprocess
ofextradition,butthelengthoftimeofthedetentionshouldbereasonable.

SameSameSameSameBy any standard, detention for an extended

period of more than two (2) years is a serious deprivation of a potential
extraditeesfundamentalrighttolibertyWhileourextraditionlawdoesnot
provideforthegrantofbailtoanextraditee,however,thereisnoprovision
prohibitinghimorherfromfilingamotionforbail,arighttodueprocess
undertheConstitution.Recordsshowthatprivaterespondentwasarrested
onSeptember23,1999,andremainedincarcerateduntilDecember20,2001,
whenthetrialcourtorderedhisadmissiontobail.Inotherwords,hehad
been detained for over two (2) years without having been convicted of
any crime. By any standard, such an extended period of detention is a
serious deprivation of his fundamental right to liberty. In fact, it was this
prolonged deprivation of liberty which prompted the extradition court to
grant him bail. While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of
bail to an extraditee, however, there is no provision prohibiting him or her
fromfilingamotionforbail,arighttodueprocessundertheConstitution.

SameSameSameSameBurdenofProofTheapplicablestandardof
due process, however, should not be the same as that in criminal
proceedingsin the latter, the standard of due process is premised on the
presumption of innocence of the accused, in the former, the assumption is
thatsuchextraditeeisafugitivefromjusticeTheprospectiveextraditeethus
bears the onus probandi of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and
should be granted bail.The applicable standard of due process, however,
should not be the same as that in criminal proceedings. In the latter, the
standardofdueprocessispremisedonthepresumptionofinnocenceofthe
accused.AsPurganancorrectlypointsout,itisfromthismajorpremisethat
the ancillary presumption in favor of admitting to bail arises. Bearing in
mindthepurposeofextraditionproceedings,thepremisebehindtheissuance
ofthearrestwarrantandthetemporarydetentionisthepossibilityofflight
ofthepotentialextraditee.Thisis

475

VOL.521,APRIL19,2007 475
 GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,Jr.

basedontheassumptionthatsuchextraditeeisafugitivefromjustice.Given
the foregoing, the prospective extraditee thus bears the onus probandi of
showingthatheorsheisnotaflightriskandshouldbegrantedbail.

Same Same Same Same Pacta Sunt Servanda While the time
honored principle of pacta sunt servanda demands that the Philippines
honor its obligations under the Extradition Treaty, it does not necessarily
mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations, the Philippines should
diminish a potential extraditees rights to life, liberty, and due process An
extraditeeshouldnotbedeprivedofhisrighttoapplyforbail,providedthat
a certain standard for the grant is satisfactorily met.The timehonored
principle of pacta sunt servanda demands that the Philippines honor its
obligationsundertheExtraditionTreatyitenteredintowiththeHongKong
SpecialAdministrativeRegion.Failuretocomplywiththeseobligationsisa
setback in our foreign relations and defeats the purpose of extradition.
However, it does not necessarily mean that in keeping with its treaty
obligations,thePhilippinesshoulddiminishapotentialextraditeesrightsto
life, liberty, and due process. More so, where these rights are guaranteed,
notonlybyourConstitution,butalsobyinternationalconventions,towhich
thePhilippinesisaparty.Weshouldnot,therefore,depriveanextraditeeof
his right to apply for bail, provided that a certain standard for the grant is
satisfactorilymet.

Same Same Same Same Standard of Proof An extradition

proceedingbeingsuigeneris,thestandardofproofrequiredingrantingor
denying bail can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal
casesnorthestandardofproofofpreponderanceofevidenceincivilcases
thepotentialextraditeemustprovebyclearandconvincingproofthathe
is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the
extraditioncourt.Anextraditionproceedingbeingsuigeneris,thestandard
ofproofrequiredingrantingordenyingbailcanneitherbetheproofbeyond
reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of proof of
preponderance of evidence in civil cases. While administrative in character,
the standard of substantial evidence used in administrative cases cannot
likewise apply given the object of extradition law which is to prevent the
prospectiveextraditeefromfleeingourjurisdiction.InhisSeparateOpinion
inPurganan,thenAssociateJustice,nowChiefJustice

476

476 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,Jr.
ReynatoS.Puno,proposedthatanewstandardwhichhetermedclearand
convincing evidence should be used in granting bail in extradition
cases. According to him, this standard should be lower than proof beyond
reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence. The potential
extraditee must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a
flightriskandwillabidewithalltheordersandprocessesoftheextradition
court. In this case, there is no showing that private respondent presented
evidencetoshowthatheisnotaflightrisk.Consequently,thiscaseshould
be remanded to the trial court to determine whether private respondent may
begrantedbailonthebasisofclearandconvincingevidence.

SPECIALCIVILACTIONintheSupremeCourt.Certiorari.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
TheHon.SecretaryandtheStateProsecutorforpetitioner.
Agabin, Versola, Hermoso, Layaoen and De Castro Law
OfficeforprivaterespondentJuanAntonioMuoz.

SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,J.:

ForourresolutionistheinstantPetitionforCertiorariunderRule65
ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,asamended,seekingtonullify
thetwoOrdersoftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch8,Manila
(presided by respondent Judge Felixberto T. Olalia, Jr.) issued in
CivilCaseNo.9995773.Theseare:(1)theOrderdatedDecember
20,2001allowingJuanAntonioMuoz,privaterespondent,topost
bailand(2)theOrderdatedApril10,2002denyingthemotionto
vacate the said Order of December 20, 2001 filed by the
Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,
represented by the Philippine Department of Justice (DOJ),
petitioner. The petition alleges that both Orders were issued by
respondent judge with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
orexcessofjurisdictionasthereisnoprovisionintheConstitution
grantingbailtoapotentialextraditee.

477

VOL.521,APRIL19,2007 477
GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,
Jr.

Thefactsare:
On January 30, 1995, the Republic of the Philippines and the
thenBritishCrownColonyofHongKongsignedanAgreementfor
theSurrenderofAccusedandConvictedPersons.Ittookeffecton
June20,1997.
On July 1, 1997, Hong Kong reverted back to the Peoples
Republic of China and became the Hong Kong Special
AdministrativeRegion.
 Private respondent Muoz was charged before the Hong Kong
Court with three (3) counts of the offense of accepting an
advantage as agent, in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the
PreventionofBriberyOrdinance,Cap.201ofHongKong.Healso
faces seven (7) counts of the offense of conspiracy to defraud,
penalizedbythecommonlawofHongKong.OnAugust23,1997
andOctober25,1999,warrantsofarrestwereissuedagainsthim.If
convicted,hefacesajailtermofseven(7)tofourteen(14)yearsfor
eachcharge.
OnSeptember13,1999,theDOJreceivedfromtheHongKong
DepartmentofJusticearequestfortheprovisionalarrestofprivate
respondent. The DOJ then forwarded the request to the National
BureauofInvestigation(NBI)which,inturn,filedwiththeRTCof
Manila,Branch19anapplicationfortheprovisionalarrestofprivate
respondent.
On September23,1999, the RTC, Branch 19, Manila issued an
OrderofArrestagainstprivaterespondent.Thatsameday,theNBI
agentsarrestedanddetainedhim.
OnOctober14,1999,privaterespondentfiledwiththeCourtof
Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with
application for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or writ of
habeascorpusquestioningthevalidityoftheOrderofArrest.
On November 9, 1999, the Court of Appeals rendered its
DecisiondeclaringtheOrderofArrestvoid.

478

478 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,
Jr.

OnNovember12,1999,theDOJfiledwiththisCourtapetitionfor
reviewoncertiorari,docketedasG.R.No.140520,prayingthatthe
DecisionoftheCourtofAppealsbereversed.
OnDecember18,2000,thisCourtrenderedaDecisiongranting
the petition of the DOJ and sustaining the validity of the Order of
Arrest against private respondent. The Decision became final and
executoryonApril10,2001.
Meanwhile, as early as November 22, 1999, petitioner Hong
KongSpecialAdministrativeRegionfiledwiththeRTCofManilaa
petitionfortheextraditionofprivaterespondent,docketedasCivil
Case No. 9995733, raffled off to Branch 10, presided by Judge
Ricardo Bernardo, Jr. For his part, private respondent filed in the
samecaseapetitionforbailwhichwasopposedbypetitioner.
Afterhearing,oronOctober8,2001,JudgeBernardo,Jr.issued
an Order denying the petition for bail, holding that there is no
Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and that private
respondentisahighflightrisk.
 OnOctober22,2001,JudgeBernardo,Jr.inhibitedhimselffrom
furtherhearingCivilCaseNo.9995733.Itwasthenraffledoffto
Branch8presidedbyrespondentjudge.
On October 30, 2001, private respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Order denying his application for bail. This
was granted by respondent judge in an Order dated December 20,
2001allowingprivaterespondenttopostbail,thus:

Inconclusion,thisCourtwillnotcontributetoaccusedsfurthererosionof
civil liberties. The petition for bail is granted subject to the following
conditions:
1. Bail is set at Php750,000.00 in cash with the condition that accused
hereby undertakes that he will appear and answer the issues raised in these
proceedings and will at all times hold himself amenable to orders and
processesofthisCourt,willfurtherappearforjudgment.Ifaccusedfailsin
thisundertaking,thecashbondwillbeforfeitedinfavorofthegovernment

479

VOL.521,APRIL19,2007 479
GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,
Jr.

2.AccusedmustsurrenderhisvalidpassporttothisCourt
3.TheDepartmentofJusticeisgivenimmediatenoticeanddiscretionof
filing its own motion for hold departure order before this Court even in
extraditionproceedingand
4. Accused is required to report to the government prosecutors handling
thiscaseoriftheysodesiretothenearestoffice,atanytimeanddayofthe
weekandiftheyfurtherdesire,manifestbeforethisCourttorequirethatall
the assets of accused, real and personal, be filed with this Court soonest,
withtheconditionthatiftheaccusedfleesfromhisundertaking,saidassets
be forfeited in favor of the government and that the corresponding
lien/annotationbenotedthereinaccordingly.
SOORDERED.

OnDecember21,2001,petitionerfiledanurgentmotiontovacate
theaboveOrder,butitwasdeniedbyrespondentjudgeinhisOrder
datedApril10,2002.
Hence,theinstantpetition.Petitionerallegedthatthetrialcourt
committedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessof
jurisdiction in admitting private respondent to bail that there is
nothingintheConstitutionorstatutorylawprovidingthatapotential
extraditee has a right to bail, the right being limited solely to
criminalproceedings.
In his comment on the petition, private respondent maintained
thattherighttobailguaranteedundertheBillofRightsextendstoa
prospective extraditee and that extradition is a harsh process
resultinginaprolongeddeprivationofonesliberty.
Section13,ArticleIIIoftheConstitutionprovidesthattheright
tobailshallnotbeimpaired,thus:

Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusionperpetuawhenevidenceofguiltisstrong,shall,beforeconviction,
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
privilegeofthewritofhabeascorpusissuspended.Excessivebailshallnot
berequired.

480

480 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,
Jr.

Jurisprudenceonextraditionisbutinitsinfancyinthisjurisdiction.
Nonetheless,thisisnotthefirsttimethatthisCourthasanoccasion
to resolve the question of whether a prospective extraditee may be
grantedbail.
InGovernmentofUnitedStatesofAmericav.Hon.GuillermoG.
Purganan,Presiding Judge, RTC of Manila,1 Branch 42, and Mark
B. Jimenez, a.k.a. Mario Batacan Crespo, this Court, speaking
through then Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, later Chief
Justice,heldthattheconstitutionalprovisiononbaildoesnotapply
to extradition proceedings. It is available only in criminal
proceedings,thus:

xxx.Assuggestedbytheuseofthewordconviction,theconstitutional
provisiononbailquotedabove,aswellasSection4,Rule114oftheRules
of Court, applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for
violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to extradition
proceedingsbecauseextraditioncourtsdonotrenderjudgmentsofconviction
oracquittal.
Moreover,theconstitutionalrighttobailflowsfromthepresumptionof
innocenceinfavorofeveryaccusedwhoshouldnotbesubjectedtotheloss
offreedomasthereafterhewouldbeentitledtoacquittal,unlesshisguiltbe
provedbeyondreasonabledoubt(De la Camara v. Enage,41SCRA1, 6,
September 17, 1971, per Fernando, J., later CJ). It follows that the
constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition,
wherethepresumptionofinnocenceisnotatissue.
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
suspendeddoesnotdetractfromtherulethattheconstitutionalrighttobail
is available only in criminal proceedings. 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 (Sec. 18, Art. VIII, Constitution). Hence,
thesecondsentenceintheconstitutionalprovisiononbailmerelyemphasizes
the right to bail in criminal proceedings for the aforementioned offenses. It
can

_______________

1G.R.No.148571,September24,2002,389SCRA623,664.

481

VOL.521,APRIL19,2007 481
GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,
Jr.

not be taken to mean that the right is available even in extradition

proceedingsthatarenotcriminalinnature.

At first glance, the above ruling applies squarely to private

respondentscase.However,thisCourtcannotignorethefollowing
trends in international law: (1) the growing importance of the
individual person in public international law who, in the 20th
century, has gradually attained global recognition (2) the higher
value now being given to human rights in the international sphere
(3) the corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal
humanrightsinfulfillingtheirtreatyobligationsand(4)thedutyof
this Court to balance the rights of the individual under our
fundamental law, on one hand, and the law on extradition, on the
other.
Themoderntrendinpublicinternationallawistheprimacy
placedontheworthoftheindividualpersonandthesanctityof
human rights. Slowly, the recognition that the individual person
may properly be a subject of international law is now taking root.
The vulnerable doctrine that the subjects of international law are
limited only to states was dramatically eroded towards the second
half of the past century. For one, the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials
after World War II resulted in the unprecedented spectacle of
individualdefendantsforactscharacterizedasviolationsofthelaws
ofwar,crimesagainstpeace,andcrimesagainsthumanity.Recently,
under the Nuremberg principle, Serbian leaders have been
persecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed
in the former Yugoslavia. These significant events show that the
individualpersonisnowavalidsubjectofinternationallaw.
On a more positive note, also after World War II, both
international organizations and states gave recognition and
importance to human rights. Thus, on December 10, 1948, the
United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal
DeclarationofHumanRightsinwhichtherighttolife,libertyand
all the other fundamental rights of every person were proclaimed.
Whilenotatreaty,theprinciplescontainedin

482

482 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,
Jr.

thesaidDeclarationarenowrecognizedascustomarilybinding
upon the members of the international
2
community. Thus, in
Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, this Court, in granting bail to a
prospective deportee, held that under the Constitution,3 the
principlessetforthinthatDeclarationarepartofthelawofthe
land. In 1966, the UN General Assembly also adopted the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which the
Philippines signed and ratified. Fundamental among the rights
enshrined therein are the rights of every person to life, liberty, and
dueprocess.
The Philippines, along with the other members of the family of
nations,committedtoupholdthefundamentalhumanrightsaswell
asvaluetheworthanddignityofeveryperson.Thiscommitmentis
enshrined in Section II, Article II of our Constitution which
provides:TheStatevaluesthedignityofeveryhumanpersonand
guaranteesfullrespectforhumanrights.ThePhilippines,therefore,
hastheresponsibilityofprotectingandpromotingtherightofevery
person to liberty and due process, ensuring that those detained or
arrestedcanparticipateintheproceedingsbeforeacourt,toenableit
to decide without delay on the legality of the detention and order
theirreleaseifjustified.Inotherwords,thePhilippineauthoritiesare
underobligationtomakeavailabletoeverypersonunderdetention
such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty.
These remedies include the right to be admitted to bail. While this
Court in 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,
particularlythe

_______________

290Phil.70(1951).

3Sec.2,Art.IIstatesThePhilippinesrenounceswarasaninstrumentofnational

policy,adoptsthegenerallyacceptedprinciplesofinternationallawaspartofthe
law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation,andamitywithallnations.

483
 VOL.521,APRIL19,2007 483
GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,
Jr.

right to life and liberty, a reexamination of this Courts ruling in

Purgananisinorder.
First,wenotethattheexerciseoftheStatespowertodeprivean
individual of his liberty is not necessarily limited to criminal
proceedings.Respondentsinadministrativeproceedings,suchas
4
deportationandquarantine, havelikewisebeendetained.
Second, to limit bail to criminal proceedings would be to close
oureyestoourjurisprudentialhistory.Philippinejurisprudencehas
notlimitedtheexerciseoftherighttobailtocriminalproceedings
only.ThisCourthasadmittedtobailpersonswhoarenotinvolved
in criminal proceedings. In fact, bail has been allowed in this
jurisdiction to persons in detention during the pendency of
administrative proceedings, taking into cognizance the
obligationofthePhilippinesunderinternationalconventionsto
upholdhumanrights. 5
The 1909 case of US v. GoSioco is illustrative. In this case, a
Chinese facing deportation for failure to secure the necessary
certificateofregistrationwasgrantedbailpendinghisappeal.After
noting that the prospective deportee had committed no crime, the
CourtopinedthatTorefusehimbailistotreathimasapersonwho
hascommittedthemostseriouscrimeknowntolawandthatwhile
deportation is not a criminal proceeding, some of the machinery
used is the machinery of criminal law. Thus, the provisions
relatingtobailwasappliedtodeportationproceedings.
6
InMejoffv.DirectorofPrisons
7
andChirskoff v. Commission of
Immigration, thisCourtruledthatforeignnationals

_______________

4 In cases involving quarantine to prevent the spread of communicable diseases,

bailisnotavailable.SeeStatev.Hutchinson,18So.2d.723,246Ala.48Varholyv.
Sweat,15So.2d.267,153Fla.571,Bakerv.Strautz,54NE2d.441,386lll.360.
512Phil.490(1909).

6Supra,footnote2.

790Phil.256(1951).

484

484 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,
Jr.
against whom no formal criminal charges have been filed may be
released on bail pending the finality of an order of deportation. As
previously stated, the Court in Mejoff relied upon the Universal
declaration of Human Rights in sustaining the detainees right to
bail.
Ifbailcanbegrantedindeportationcases,weseenojustification
why it should not also be allowed in extradition cases. Likewise,
considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
appliestodeportationcases,thereisnoreasonwhyitcannotbe
invokedinextraditioncases.
After all, both are administrative proceedings where the
innocenceorguiltofthepersondetainedisnotinissue.Clearly,the
rightofaprospectiveextraditeetoapplyforbailinthisjurisdiction
mustbeviewedinthelightofthevarioustreatyobligationsofthe
Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection of
humanrights.Underthesetreaties,thepresumptionliesinfavorof
humanliberty.Thus,thePhilippinesshouldseetoitthattherightto
libertyofeveryindividualisnotimpaired.
Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1069 (The
PhilippineExtraditionLaw)definesextraditionastheremovalof
anaccusedfromthePhilippineswiththeobjectofplacinghimatthe
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
stateorgovernment.
Extraditionhasthus been characterized as the right of a foreign
power,createdbytreaty,todemandthesurrenderofoneaccusedor
convicted of a crime within its territorial jurisdiction, and the
correlativedutyoftheotherstatetosurrenderhimtothedemanding
8
state. Itisnotacriminalproceed

_______________

8Factorv.Laubenheimer,290US276,78L.Ed.315,54S.Ct.101Terlindon v.

Ames,184US270,46L.Ed.534,22S.Ct.484FongYueTingv.US,149 US 698,37
L.Ed.905,13S.Ct.1016Fitzpatrick

485

VOL.521,APRIL19,2007 485
GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,
Jr.
9
ing. Even if the potential extraditee is a criminal, an extradition
proceedingisnotbyitsnaturecriminal,foritisnotpunishmentfora10
crime, even though such punishment may follow extradition. Itis
sui generis, tracing its existence wholly to treaty obligations
11
betweendifferentnations. Itisnotatrialtodeterminetheguilt
 11
betweendifferentnations. Itisnotatrialtodeterminetheguilt
12
or innocence of the potential extraditee. Nor is it a fullblown13
civilaction,butonethatismerelyadministrativeincharacter.
Itsobjectistopreventtheescapeofapersonaccusedorconvicted
ofacrimeandtosecurehisreturntothestatefromwhichhefled,
14
forthepurposeoftrialorpunishment.
But while extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it is
characterizedbythefollowing:(a)itentailsadeprivationofliberty
onthepartofthepotentialextraditeeand(b)themeansemployed
to attain the purpose of extradition is also the machinery of
criminallaw. This is shown by Section 6 of P.D. No. 1069 (The
PhilippineExtraditionLaw)whichmandatestheimmediatearrest
andtemporarydetentionoftheaccusedifsuchwillbestserve
the interest of justice. We further note that Section 20 allows the
requesting state in case of urgency to ask for the provisional
arrest of the accused, pending receipt of the request for
extraditionandthatreleasefromprovisional

_______________

v. Williams, 46 F2d. 40 US v. Godwin, 97 F. Supp. 252, affd. 191 F2d. 932

Dominguezv.State,234SW701,90Tex.Crim.92.
9Secretary of Justice v. Lantion,G.R. No. 139465, October 17, 2000, 343SCRA

377.
10USexrelOppenheimv.Hecht,16F2d.955,certden.273US969,71L.Ed.883,

47S.Ct.572.
11Statev.Chase,107So.541,91Fla.413Statev.Quigg,108So.409,91Fla.197.

12 Benson v. McMahon, 127 US 457, 32 L. Ed. 234, 8 S. Ct. 1240 Jimenez v.

Aristequieta,311F2d.547,stayden.314F2d.649.
13Spatolav.US,741F.Supp.362,Affd.925F2d.615.

14ReHenderson,145NW574,27ND155StateexrelTresoderv.Remann,4P2d.

866,165Wash.92.

486

486 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,
Jr.

arrestshallnotprejudicerearrestandextraditionoftheaccusedif
arequestforextraditionisreceivedsubsequently.
Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly
administrative,bearsallearmarksofacriminalprocess.Apotential
extraditeemaybesubjectedtoarrest,toaprolongedrestraintof
liberty,andforcedtotransfertothedemandingstatefollowing
theproceedings.Temporarydetentionmaybeanecessarystepin
the process of extradition, but the length of time of the detention
shouldbereasonable.
 RecordsshowthatprivaterespondentwasarrestedonSeptember
23,1999,andremainedincarcerateduntilDecember20,2001,when
thetrialcourtorderedhisadmissiontobail.Inotherwords,hehad
been detained for over two (2) years without having been
convictedofanycrime.Byanystandard,suchanextendedperiod
of detention is a serious deprivation of his fundamental right to
liberty. In fact, it was this prolonged deprivation of liberty which
promptedtheextraditioncourttogranthimbail.
Whileourextraditionlawdoesnotprovideforthegrantofbailto
anextraditee,however,thereisnoprovisionprohibitinghimorher
from filing a motion for bail, a right to due process under the
Constitution.
The applicable standard of due process, however, should not be
thesameasthatincriminalproceedings.Inthelatter,thestandardof
due process is premised on the presumption of innocence of the
accused. As Purganan correctly points out, it is from this major
premisethattheancillarypresumptioninfavorofadmittingtobail
arises. Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings, the
premisebehindtheissuanceofthearrestwarrantandthetemporary
detentionisthepossibilityofflightofthepotentialextraditee.This
is based
15
on the assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from
justice. Giventheforegoing,theprospectiveextraditeethus

_______________

15Beaulieuv.Hartigan,554F.2d1.

487

VOL.521,APRIL19,2007 487
GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,
Jr.

bearstheonusprobandiofshowingthatheorsheisnotaflightrisk
andshouldbegrantedbail.
Thetimehonoredprincipleofpactasuntservandademandsthat
thePhilippineshonoritsobligationsundertheExtraditionTreatyit
entered into with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Failuretocomplywiththeseobligationsisasetbackinourforeign
relationsanddefeatsthepurposeofextradition.However,itdoesnot
necessarily mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations, the
Philippines should diminish a potential extraditees rights to life,
liberty,anddueprocess.Moreso,wheretheserightsareguaranteed,
notonlybyourConstitution,butalsobyinternationalconventions,
towhichthePhilippinesisaparty.Weshouldnot,therefore,deprive
an extraditee of his right to apply for bail, provided that a certain
standardforthegrantissatisfactorilymet.
 An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of
proof required in granting or denying bail can neither be the proof
beyondreasonabledoubtincriminalcasesnorthestandardofproof
ofpreponderanceofevidenceincivilcases.Whileadministrativein
character,thestandardofsubstantialevidenceusedinadministrative
cases cannot likewise apply given the object of extradition law
which is to prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our
jurisdiction. In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate
Justice, now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new
standardwhichhetermedclearandconvincingevidenceshould
be used in granting bail in extradition cases. According to him,
this standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt
buthigherthanpreponderanceofevidence.Thepotentialextraditee
mustprovebyclearandconvincingevidencethatheisnotaflight
risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the
extraditioncourt.
Inthiscase,thereisnoshowingthatprivaterespondentpresented
evidencetoshowthatheisnotaflightrisk.Consequently,thiscase
shouldberemandedtothetrialcourtto

488

488 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
GovernmentofHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegionvs.Olalia,
Jr.

determine whether private respondent may be granted bail on the

basisofclearandconvincingevidence.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. This case is
REMANDED to the trial court to determine whether private
respondent is entitled to bail on the basis of clear and convincing
evidence.Ifnot,thetrialcourtshouldorderthecancellationofhis
bail bond and his immediate detention and thereafter, conduct the
extraditionproceedingswithdispatch.
SOORDERED.

Puno(C.J.),Quisumbing,YnaresSantiago,Carpio,Austria
Martinez, Corona, CarpioMorales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Chico
Nazario,Tinga,Garcia,Velasco,Jr.andNachura,JJ.,concur.

Petitiondismissed,caseremandedtotrialcourt.

Notes.Ajudgeissuingawarrantfortheprovisionalarrestofan
extraditee may rely on the request for provisional arrest
accompaniedbyfacsimilecopiesoftheoutstandingwarrantofarrest
by the requesting government, a summary of the facts of the case
against the extraditee, particulars of his birth and address, and
 intention to request his provisional arrest and the reason therefore.
(Cuevasvs.Muoz,348SCRA542[2000])
Theultimatepurposeofextraditionproceedingsincourtisonly
to determine whether the extradition request complies with the
Extradition Treaty, and whether the person sought is extraditable.
(Government of the United States vs. Purganan, 389 SCRA 623
[2002])
Bail may be granted to a possible extraditee only upon a clear
and convincing showing (1) that he will not be a flight risk or a
danger to the community, and (2) that there exist special,
humanitarian and compelling circumstances. (Rodriguez vs. Hon.
Presiding Judge of the RTC of Manila, Br. 17, 483 SCRA 290
[2006])

o0o

489

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.