GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION,

represented by the Phiippine Dep!rt"ent #$ %&sti'e, Petiti#ner, (s) HON) FELI*+ERTO

T) OLALIA, %R) !nd %,AN ANTONIO M,-O., Resp#ndents)/
G)R) N#) 012341/ Apri 05, 6774
FACTS8
On January 30, 1995, the Philippines and Hong Kong signed an "Agreement for the
urrender of A!!used and "on#i!ted Persons$" %t too& effe!t on June '0, 199($
Pri#ate respondent )u*o+ ,as !harged -efore the Hong Kong "ourt ,ith 3 !ounts of the
offense of "a!!epting an ad#antage as agent," in #iolation of e!tion 9 .1/ .a/ of the Pre#ention
of 0ri-ery Ordinan!e, "ap$ '01 of Hong Kong$ He also fa!es ( !ounts of the offense of
!onspira!y to defraud, penali+ed -y the !ommon la, of Hong Kong$ On August '3, 199( and
O!to-er '5, 1999, ,arrants of arrest ,ere issued against him$ %f !on#i!ted, he fa!es a 1ail term of
( to 12 years for ea!h !harge$
On eptem-er 13, 1999, 3OJ re!ei#ed from the Hong Kong 3epartment of Justi!e a
re4uest for the pro#isional arrest of pri#ate respondent$ 5he 3OJ for,arded the re4uest to the
60% ,hi!h, in turn, filed ,ith the 75" of )anila an appli!ation for the pro#isional arrest of
pri#ate respondent$ 75" )anila issued an Order of Arrest against pri#ate respondent$ 5hat same
day, the 60% agents arrested and detained him$ Pri#ate respondent 4uestioned the arrest until the
matter rea!hed the "$ 5he latter e#entually sustained the #alidity of the arrest$ 5he de!ision
-e!ame final and e8e!utory on April 10, '001$
)ean,hile, as early as 6o#em-er '', 1999, petitioner Hong Kong pe!ial
Administrati#e 7egion filed also in the 75"9 )anila a petition for the e8tradition of pri#ate
respondent$ Pri#ate respondent filed, in the same !ase a petition for -ail ,hi!h ,as opposed -y
petitioner$
On O!to-er :, '001 the first 1udge ,ho handled the !ase issued an Order denying the
petition for -ail, holding that there is no Philippine la, granting -ail in e8tradition !ases and that
pri#ate respondent is a high "flight ris&$" Pri#ate respondent filed )7 of the Order denying his
appli!ation for -ail$ 5his ,as granted -y respondent 1udge Olalia, the ne, 1udge ,ho handled the
!ase, allo,ing pri#ate respondent to post -ail$
On 3e!em-er '1, '001, petitioner filed an urgent motion to #a!ate the a-o#e Order, -ut it
,as denied -y respondent 1udge$ Hen!e, the instant petition$
ISS,E8
;hether an e8traditee li&e pri#ate respondent is entitled to -ail$
R,LING8
<=$ 5he "ourt !annot ignore the follo,ing trends in international la,> .1/ the gro,ing
importan!e of the indi#idual person in pu-li! international la, ,ho, in the '0th !entury, has
gradually attained glo-al re!ognition? .'/ the higher #alue no, -eing gi#en to human rights in
the international sphere? .3/ the !orresponding duty of !ountries to o-ser#e these uni#ersal
human rights in fulfilling their treaty o-ligations? and .2/ the duty of this "ourt to -alan!e the
rights of the indi#idual under our fundamental la,, on one hand, and the la, on e8tradition, on
the other$
5he modern trend in pu-li! international la, is the prima!y pla!ed on the ,orth of the
indi#idual person and the san!tity of human rights$ On 3e!em-er 10, 192:, the @nited 6ations
Aeneral Assem-ly adopted the @ni#ersal 3e!laration of Human 7ights in ,hi!h the right to life,
li-erty and all the other fundamental rights of e#ery person ,ere pro!laimed$ ;hile not a treaty,
the prin'ipes '#nt!ined in the s!id De'!r!ti#n !re n#9 re'#:ni;ed !s '&st#"!riy bindin:
&p#n the "e"bers #$ the intern!ti#n! '#""&nity) 5he Philippines, along ,ith the other
mem-ers of the family of nations, !ommitted to uphold the fundamental human rights as ,ell as
#alue the ,orth and dignity of e#ery person$
5he Philippine authorities are under o-ligation to ma&e a#aila-le to e#ery person under
detention su!h remedies ,hi!h safeguard their fundamental right to li-erty$ 5hese remedies
in!lude the right to -e admitted to -ail$
5he e8er!ise of the tateBs po,er to depri#e an indi#idual of his li-erty is not ne!essarily
limited to !riminal pro!eedings$ 7espondents in administrati#e pro!eedings, su!h as deportation
and 4uarantine, ha#e li&e,ise -een detained$ ;hile deportation is not a !riminal pro!eeding,
some of the ma!hinery used "is the ma!hinery of !riminal la,$" 5hus, the pro#isions relating to
-ail ,as applied to deportation pro!eedings$
5his "ourt has admitted to -ail persons ,ho are not in#ol#ed in !riminal pro!eedings$ %n
fa!t, -ail has -een allo,ed in this 1urisdi!tion to persons in detention during the penden!y of
administrati#e pro!eedings, ta&ing into !ogni+an!e the o-ligation of the Philippines under
international !on#entions to uphold human rights$ %f -ail !an -e granted in deportation !ases, ,e
see no 1ustifi!ation ,hy it should not also -e allo,ed in e8tradition !ases$ Ci&e,ise, !onsidering
that the @ni#ersal 3e!laration of Human 7ights applies to deportation !ases, there is no reason
,hy it !annot -e in#o&ed in e8tradition !ases$
5he right of a prospe!ti#e e8traditee to apply for -ail in this 1urisdi!tion must -e #ie,ed
in the light of the #arious treaty o-ligations of the Philippines !on!erning respe!t for the
promotion and prote!tion of human rights$ @nder these treaties, the presumption lies in fa#or of
human li-erty$ 5hus, the Philippines should see to it that the right to li-erty of e#ery indi#idual is
not impaired$
e!tion '.a/ of Presidential 3e!ree .P$3$/ 6o$ 10D9 .5he Philippine =8tradition Ca,/
defines "e8tradition" as "the removal 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 him or the execution of a
penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government."
=8tradition has thus -een !hara!teri+ed as the right of a foreign po,er, !reated -y treaty,
to demand the surrender of one a!!used or !on#i!ted of a !rime ,ithin its territorial 1urisdi!tion,
and the !orrelati#e duty of the other state to surrender him to the demanding state$ %t is not a
!riminal pro!eeding$ =#en if the potential e8traditee is a !riminal, an e8tradition pro!eeding is
not -y its nature !riminal, for it is not punishment for a !rime, e#en though su!h punishment may
follo, e8tradition$ %t is sui generis, tra!ing its e8isten!e ,holly to treaty o-ligations -et,een
different nations$ %t is not a trial to determine the guilt or inno!en!e of the potential e8traditee$
6or is it a full9-lo,n !i#il a!tion, -ut one that is merely administrati#e in !hara!ter$ %ts o-1e!t is
to pre#ent the es!ape of a person a!!used or !on#i!ted of a !rime and to se!ure his return to the
state from ,hi!h he fled, for the purpose of trial or punishment$
0ut ,hile e8tradition is not a !riminal pro!eeding, it is !hara!teri+ed -y the follo,ing> .a/
it entails a depri#ation of li-erty on the part of the potential e8traditee and .-/ the means
employed to attain the purpose of e8tradition is also "the ma!hinery of !riminal la,$" 5his is
sho,n -y e!tion D of P$3$ 6o$ 10D9 .5he Philippine =8tradition Ca,/ ,hi!h mandates the
"immediate arrest and temporary detention of the a!!used" if su!h ",ill -est ser#e the interest of
1usti!e$" ;e further note that e!tion '0 allo,s the re4uesting state "in !ase of urgen!y" to as&
for the "pro#isional arrest of the a!!used, pending re!eipt of the re4uest for e8tradition?" and that
release from pro#isional arrest "shall not pre1udi!e re9arrest and e8tradition of the a!!used if a
re4uest for e8tradition is re!ei#ed su-se4uently$"
O-#iously, an e8tradition pro!eeding, ,hile ostensi-ly administrati#e, -ears all earmar&s
of a !riminal pro!ess$ A potential e8traditee may -e su-1e!ted to arrest, to a prolonged restraint
of li-erty, and for!ed to transfer to the demanding state follo,ing the pro!eedings$ "5emporary
detention" may -e a ne!essary step in the pro!ess of e8tradition, -ut the length of time of the
detention should -e reasona-le$
7e!ords sho, that pri#ate respondent ,as arrested on eptem-er '3, 1999, and remained
in!ar!erated until 3e!em-er '0, '001, ,hen the trial !ourt ordered his admission to -ail$ He had
-een detained for o#er ' years ,ithout ha#ing -een !on#i!ted of any !rime$ u!h an e8tended
period of detention is a serious depri#ation of his fundamental right to li-erty$
;hile our e8tradition la, does not pro#ide for the grant of -ail to an e8traditee, there is
also no pro#ision prohi-iting him or her from filing a motion for -ail, a right to due pro!ess
under the "onstitution$
5he appli!a-le standard of due pro!ess, ho,e#er, should not -e the same as that in
!riminal pro!eedings$ 0earing in mind the purpose of e8tradition pro!eedings, the premise
-ehind the issuan!e of the arrest ,arrant and the "temporary detention" is the possi-ility of flight
of the potential e8traditee$ 5his is -ased on the assumption that su!h e8traditee is a fugiti#e from
1usti!e$ Ai#en the foregoing, the prospe!ti#e e8traditee thus -ears the onus pro-andi of sho,ing
that he or she is not a flight ris& and should -e granted -ail$
%n &eeping ,ith its treaty o-ligations, it does not mean that the Philippines should
diminish a potential e8traditeeBs rights to life, li-erty, and due pro!ess$ )ore so, ,here these
rights are guaranteed, not only -y our "onstitution, -ut also -y international !on#entions, to
,hi!h the Philippines is a party$ ;e should not, therefore, depri#e an e8traditee of his right to
apply for -ail, pro#ided that a !ertain standard for the grant is satisfa!torily met$
An e8tradition pro!eeding -eing sui generis, the standard of proof re4uired in granting or
denying -ail !an neither -e the proof -eyond reasona-le dou-t in !riminal !ases nor the standard
of proof of preponderan!e of e#iden!e in !i#il !ases$ ;hile administrati#e in !hara!ter, the
standard of su-stantial e#iden!e used in administrati#e !ases !annot li&e,ise apply gi#en the
o-1e!t of e8tradition la, ,hi!h is to pre#ent the prospe!ti#e e8traditee from fleeing our
1urisdi!tion$ 7eynato $ Puno, proposed that a ne, standard ,hi!h he termed "!lear and
!on#in!ing e#iden!e" should -e used in granting -ail in e8tradition !ases$ A!!ording to him, this
standard should -e lo,er than proof -eyond reasona-le dou-t -ut higher than preponderan!e of
e#iden!e$ 5he potential e8traditee must pro#e -y "!lear and !on#in!ing e#iden!e" that he is not a
flight ris& and ,ill a-ide ,ith all the orders and pro!esses of the e8tradition !ourt$
%n this !ase, there is no sho,ing that pri#ate respondent presented e#iden!e to sho, that
he is not a flight ris&$ "onse4uently, this !ase should -e remanded to the trial !ourt to determine
,hether pri#ate respondent may -e granted -ail on the -asis of "!lear and !on#in!ing e#iden!e$"
;H=7=EO7=, ,e 3%)% the petition$ 5his !ase is 7=)A63=3 to the trial !ourt to
determine ,hether pri#ate respondent is entitled to -ail on the -asis of "!lear and !on#in!ing
e#iden!e$" %f not, the trial !ourt should order the !an!ellation of his -ail -ond and his immediate
detention? and thereafter, !ondu!t the e8tradition pro!eedings ,ith dispat!h$