G.R. No.

153675 April 19, 2007 of Investigation (NBI) which, in turn, filed with the RTC of Manila, Branch
19 an application for the provisional arrest of private respondent.
GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE
REGION, represented by the Philippine Department of On September 23, 1999, the RTC, Branch 19, Manila issued an Order of
Justice, Petitioner, Arrest against private respondent. That same day, the NBI agents
vs. arrested and detained him.
HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLALIA, JR. and JUAN ANTONIO On October 14, 1999, private respondent filed with the Court of Appeals
MUÑOZ, Respondents. a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application for
DECISION preliminary mandatory injunction and/or writ of habeas
corpus questioning the validity of the Order of Arrest.
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
On November 9, 1999, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision
For our resolution is the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the declaring the Order of Arrest void.
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to nullify the two
Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, Manila (presided by On November 12, 1999, the DOJ filed with this Court a petition for review
respondent Judge Felixberto T. Olalia, Jr.) issued in Civil Case No. 99- on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 140520, praying that the Decision of
95773. These are: (1) the Order dated December 20, 2001 allowing Juan the Court of Appeals be reversed.
Antonio Muñoz, private respondent, to post bail; and (2) the Order dated On December 18, 2000, this Court rendered a Decision granting the
April 10, 2002 denying the motion to vacate the said Order of December petition of the DOJ and sustaining the validity of the Order of Arrest
20, 2001 filed by the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative against private respondent. The Decision became final and executory on
Region, represented by the Philippine Department of Justice (DOJ), April 10, 2001.
petitioner. The petition alleges that both Orders were issued by Meanwhile, as early as November 22, 1999, petitioner Hong Kong
respondent judge with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or Special Administrative Region filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for
excess of jurisdiction as there is no provision in the Constitution granting the extradition of private respondent, docketed as Civil Case No. 99-
bail to a potential extraditee. 95733, raffled off to Branch 10, presided by Judge Ricardo Bernardo, Jr.
The facts are: For his part, private respondent filed, in the same case,- a petition for
On January 30, 1995, the Republic of the Philippines and the then British bail which was opposed by petitioner.
Crown Colony of Hong Kong signed an "Agreement for the Surrender of After hearing, or on October 8, 2001, Judge Bernardo, Jr. issued an
Accused and Convicted Persons." It took effect on June 20, 1997. Order denying the petition for bail, holding that there is no Philippine law
On July 1, 1997, Hong Kong reverted back to the People’s Republic of granting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high
China and became the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. "flight risk."

Private respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court with On October 22, 2001, Judge Bernardo, Jr. inhibited himself from further
three (3) counts of the offense of "accepting an advantage as agent," in hearing Civil Case No. 99-95733. It was then raffled off to Branch 8
violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. presided by respondent judge.
201 of Hong Kong. He also faces seven (7) counts of the offense of On October 30, 2001, private respondent filed a motion for
conspiracy to defraud, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. On reconsideration of the Order denying his application for bail. This was
August 23, 1997 and October 25, 1999, warrants of arrest were issued granted by respondent judge in an Order dated December 20, 2001
against him. If convicted, he faces a jail term of seven (7) to fourteen (14) allowing private respondent to post bail, thus:
years for each charge. In conclusion, this Court will not contribute to accused’s further erosion of
On September 13, 1999, the DOJ received from the Hong Kong civil liberties. The petition for bail is granted subject to the following
Department of Justice a request for the provisional arrest of private conditions:
respondent. The DOJ then forwarded the request to the National Bureau 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 resolve the question of whether a prospective extraditee may be granted
himself amenable to orders and processes of this Court, will bail.
further appear for judgment. If accused fails in this undertaking, In Government of United States of America v. Hon. Guillermo G.
the cash bond will be forfeited in favor of the government; Purganan, Presiding Judge, RTC of Manila, Branch 42, and Mark B.
2. Accused must surrender his valid passport to this Court; Jimenez, a.k.a. Mario Batacan Crespo,1 this Court, speaking through then
3. The Department of Justice is given immediate notice and Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, later Chief Justice, held that
discretion of filing its own motion for hold departure order before the constitutional provision on bail does not apply to extradition
this Court even in extradition proceeding; and proceedings. It is "available only in criminal proceedings," thus:

4. Accused is required to report to the government prosecutors x x x. As suggested by the use of the word "conviction," the constitutional
handling this case or if they so desire to the nearest office, at any provision on bail quoted above, as well as Section 4, Rule 114 of the
time and day of the week; and if they further desire, manifest Rules of Court, applies only when a person has been arrested and
before this Court to require that all the assets of accused, real detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to
and personal, be filed with this Court soonest, with the condition extradition proceedings because extradition courts do not render
that if the accused flees from his undertaking, said assets be judgments of conviction or acquittal.
forfeited in favor of the government and that the corresponding Moreover, the constitutional right to bail "flows from the presumption of
lien/annotation be noted therein accordingly. innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the
SO ORDERED. loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his
guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt" (De la Camara v. Enage, 41
On December 21, 2001, petitioner filed an urgent motion to vacate the SCRA 1, 6, September 17, 1971, per Fernando, J., later CJ). It follows
above Order, but it was denied by respondent judge in his Order dated that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like
April 10, 2002. extradition, where the presumption of innocence is not at issue.
Hence, the instant petition. Petitioner alleged that the trial court The provision in the Constitution stating that the "right to bail shall not be
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
jurisdiction in admitting private respondent to bail; that there is nothing in suspended" does not detract from the rule that the constitutional right to
the Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential extraditee has bail is available only in criminal proceedings. It must be noted that the
a right to bail, the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings. suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus finds application
In his comment on the petition, private respondent maintained that the "only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or
right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a prospective directly connected with invasion" (Sec. 18, Art. VIII, Constitution). Hence,
extraditee; and that extradition is a harsh process resulting in a prolonged the second sentence in the constitutional provision on bail merely
deprivation of one’s liberty. emphasizes the right to bail in criminal proceedings for the
aforementioned offenses. It cannot be taken to mean that the right is
Section 13, Article III of the Constitution provides that the right to bail available even in extradition proceedings that are not criminal in nature.
shall not be impaired, thus:
At first glance, the above ruling applies squarely to private respondent’s
Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable case. However, this Court cannot ignore the following trends in
by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before international law: (1) the growing importance of the individual person in
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on public international law who, in the 20th century, has gradually attained
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be global recognition; (2) the higher value now being given to human rights
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the international sphere; (3) the corresponding duty of countries to
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. observe these universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations;
Jurisprudence on extradition is but in its infancy in this jurisdiction. and (4) the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the individual under
Nonetheless, this is not the first time that this Court has an occasion to 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 recognition and protection to human rights, particularly the right to life
on the worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human and liberty, a reexamination of this Court’s ruling in Purganan is in order.
rights. Slowly, the recognition that the individual person may properly be First, we note that the exercise of the State’s power to deprive an
a subject of international law is now taking root. The vulnerable doctrine individual of his liberty is not necessarily limited to criminal
that the subjects of international law are limited only to states was proceedings. Respondents in administrative proceedings, such as
dramatically eroded towards the second half of the past century. For one, deportation and quarantine,4 have likewise been detained.
the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World War II resulted in the
unprecedented spectacle of individual defendants for acts characterized Second, to limit bail to criminal proceedings would be to close our
as violations of the laws of war, crimes against peace, and crimes against eyes to our jurisprudential history. Philippine jurisprudence has
humanity. Recently, under the Nuremberg principle, Serbian leaders not limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal proceedings
have been persecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity only. This Court has admitted to bail persons who are not
committed in the former Yugoslavia. These significant events show that involved in criminal proceedings. In fact, bail has been allowed in
the individual person is now a valid subject of international law. this jurisdiction to persons in detention during the pendency of
administrative proceedings, taking into cognizance the obligation
On a more positive note, also after World War II, both international of the Philippines under international conventions to uphold
organizations and states gave recognition and importance to human human rights.
rights. Thus, on December 10, 1948, the United Nations General
Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in which The 1909 case of US v. Go-Sioco5 is illustrative. In this case, a Chinese
the right to life, liberty and all the other fundamental rights of every facing deportation for failure to secure the necessary certificate of
person were proclaimed. While not a treaty, the principles contained in registration was granted bail pending his appeal. After noting that the
the said Declaration are now recognized as customarily binding prospective deportee had committed no crime, the Court opined that "To
upon the members of the international community. Thus, in Mejoff v. refuse him bail is to treat him as a person who has committed the most
Director of Prisons,2 this Court, in granting bail to a prospective serious crime known to law;" and that while deportation is not a criminal
deportee, held that under the Constitution,3 the principles set forth in proceeding, some of the machinery used "is the machinery of criminal
that Declaration are part of the law of the land. In 1966, the UN General law." Thus, the provisions relating to bail was applied to deportation
Assembly also adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political proceedings.
Rights which the Philippines signed and ratified. Fundamental among the In Mejoff v. Director of Prisons6 and Chirskoff v. Commission of
rights enshrined therein are the rights of every person to life, liberty, and Immigration,7 this Court ruled that foreign nationals against whom no
due process. formal criminal charges have been filed may be released on bail pending
The Philippines, along with the other members of the family of nations, the finality of an order of deportation. As previously stated, the Court
committed to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the in Mejoff relied upon the Universal declaration of Human Rights in
worth and dignity of every person. This commitment is enshrined in sustaining the detainee’s right to bail.
Section II, Article II of our Constitution which provides: "The State values If bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no justification why it
the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human should not also be allowed in extradition cases. Likewise, considering
rights." The Philippines, therefore, has the responsibility of protecting and that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation
promoting the right of every person to liberty and due process, ensuring cases, there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition cases.
that those detained or arrested can participate in the proceedings before After all, both are administrative proceedings where the innocence or
a court, to enable it to decide without delay on the legality of the guilt of the person detained is not in issue.
detention and order their release if justified. In other words, the Philippine
authorities are under obligation to make available to every person under Clearly, the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this
detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of
liberty. These remedies include the right to be admitted to bail. While this the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection of
Court in Purganan limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal human rights. Under these treaties, the presumption lies in favor of
proceedings, however, in light of the various international treaties giving human liberty. Thus, the Philippines should see to it that the right to
liberty of every individual is not impaired.
Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1069 (The Philippine detained for over two (2) years without having been convicted of
Extradition Law) defines "extradition" as "the removal of an accused from any crime. By any standard, such an extended period of detention is a
the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign serious deprivation of his fundamental right to liberty. In fact, it was this
authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in prolonged deprivation of liberty which prompted the extradition court to
connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the grant him bail.
execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an
the requesting state or government." extraditee, however, there is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing
Extradition has thus been characterized as the right of a foreign power, a motion for bail, a right to due process under the Constitution.
created by treaty, to demand the surrender of one accused or convicted The applicable standard of due process, however, should not be the
of a crime within its territorial jurisdiction, and the correlative duty of the same as that in criminal proceedings. In the latter, the standard of due
other state to surrender him to the demanding state.8 It is not a criminal process is premised on the presumption of innocence of the accused.
proceeding.9 Even if the potential extraditee is a criminal, an extradition As Purganan correctly points out, it is from this major premise that the
proceeding is not by its nature criminal, for it is not punishment for a ancillary presumption in favor of admitting to bail arises. Bearing in mind
crime, even though such punishment may follow extradition.10 It is sui the purpose of extradition proceedings, the premise behind the issuance
generis, tracing its existence wholly to treaty obligations between of the arrest warrant and the "temporary detention" is the possibility of
different nations.11 It is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence flight of the potential extraditee. This is based on the assumption that
of the potential extraditee.12 Nor is it a full-blown civil action, but one such extraditee is a fugitive from justice.15 Given the foregoing, the
that is merely administrative in character.13 Its object is to prevent the prospective extraditee thus bears the onus probandi of showing that he
escape of a person accused or convicted of a crime and to secure his or she is not a flight risk and should be granted bail.
return to the state from which he fled, for the purpose of trial or
punishment.14 The time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda demands that the
Philippines honor its obligations under the Extradition Treaty it entered
But while extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it is characterized by into with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Failure to comply
the following: (a) it entails a deprivation of liberty on the part of the with these obligations is a setback in our foreign relations and defeats the
potential extraditee and (b) the means employed to attain the purpose purpose of extradition. However, it does not necessarily mean that in
of extradition is also "the machinery of criminal law." This is shown keeping with its treaty obligations, the Philippines should diminish a
by Section 6 of P.D. No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) which potential extraditee’s rights to life, liberty, and due process. More so,
mandates the "immediate arrest and temporary detention of the where these rights are guaranteed, not only by our Constitution, but also
accused" if such "will best serve the interest of justice." We further note by international conventions, to which the Philippines is a party. We
that Section 20 allows the requesting state "in case of urgency" to ask for should not, therefore, deprive an extraditee of his right to apply for bail,
the "provisional arrest of the accused, pending receipt of the provided that a certain standard for the grant is satisfactorily met.
request for extradition;" and that release from provisional arrest "shall
not prejudice re-arrest and extradition of the accused if a request for An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of proof
extradition is received subsequently." required in granting or denying bail can neither be the proof beyond
reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of proof of
Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, preponderance of evidence in civil cases. While administrative in
bears all earmarks of a criminal process. A potential extraditee may be character, the standard of substantial evidence used in administrative
subjected to arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to cases cannot likewise apply given the object of extradition law which is to
transfer to the demanding state following the prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction. In his
proceedings. "Temporary detention" may be a necessary step in the Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice
process of extradition, but the length of time of the detention should be Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard which he termed "clear
reasonable. and convincing evidence" should be used in granting bail in
Records show that private respondent was arrested on September 23, extradition cases. According to him, this standard should be lower than
1999, and remained incarcerated until December 20, 2001, when the trial proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of
court ordered his admission to bail. In other words, he had been evidence. The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing
evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and
processes of the extradition court.
In this case, there is no showing that private respondent presented
evidence to show that he is not a flight risk. Consequently, this case
should be remanded to the trial court to determine whether private
respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and convincing
evidence."
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." If not, the trial court should
order the cancellation of his bail bond and his immediate detention; and
thereafter, conduct the extradition proceedings with dispatch.
SO ORDERED.