I will be discussing about the case of Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia.

Now, this case is just a reexamination of the case of Government of USA v. Judge Purganan and Mark
Jimenez. So, to fully understand the ruling of the Supreme Court in this case, let me first give you a brief
overview of the case of Government of USA v. Judge Purganan and Mark Jimenez.

By the way, Mark Jimenez in this case is the same Mark Jimenez in the case of DOJ v. Judge Lantion
where the Supreme Court resolved the issue whether a prospective extraditee is entitled to the
documents and papers submitted by the requesting party during the initial evaluation of the extradition
proceedings by the Department of Justice.

And Mark Jimenez is also known as Mario Crespo, so he is the same Mario Crespo in the Crespo v. Mogul
case which established the doctrine on whether a trial court may refuse to grant the motion to dismiss
filed by the prosecutor at the instance of the Secretary of Justice, and proceed to arraignment and trial.

Going back to the case of Purganan case, the issue resolved by the Supreme Court here is whether
during the pendency of the extradition proceedings in the RTC, should a prospective extraditee be
allowed to post bail?

What did the court say in that case? No. Sabi ng Supreme Court, as suggested by the word “conviction”
under Section 13 of the Bill of Rights, in conjunction with Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.

Section 13. 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 WORD USED IS CONVICTION.

As suggested by the use of the word "conviction," the constitutional provision on bail and Section 4, Rule
114 of the Rules of Court, applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for violation of
Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to extradition proceedings because extradition courts do not
render judgments of conviction or acquittal.

Also, the constitutional right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused
in a criminal case. It follows therefore that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply in a case
like extradition, where the presumption of innocence is not at issue.

But by way of an exception, a prospective extraditee may be allowed to bail provided it meets two
conditions:

1) That once granted bail, he will not be a flight risk and a danger to the community
2) That there exists special humanitarian and compelling circumstances that will justify the
bail to him

And since this is merely an exception, the applicant has the burden of proving these two conditions by
clear and convincing evidence.

That’s the EN BANC ruling of the Supreme Court in the 2002 case of Govt of USA v. Purganan. The NO
BAIL RULE APPLIES save for the two exceptions.

NOW five years later, here comes the ruling of the Supreme Court in the 2007 case of Government of
Hongkong v. Judge Olalia, an en banc ruling, which reexamined the NO BAIL RULE in Purganan case.

So that now, hindi na naga apply yung no bail rule. Why? On the premise of international law.

So here are the material facts of the Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v. Judge
Olalia:

FACTS:
The Philippine DOJ received from the Hong Kong DOJ a request for the provisional arrest of private
respondent Juan Munoz who was facing multiple criminal charges in Hong Kong. Said request was
forwarded to the NBI, then the NBI filed with the RTC an application for provisional arrest of Munoz. The
NBI then arrested Munoz upon the order of the RTC.

Now, Hong Kong also filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for the extradition of Munoz under the RP-
Hong Kong Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons. On the said proceedings,
Munoz filed a petition for bail which was initially denied by the trial court. Upon MR, Judge Olalia
granted the application for bail.

ISSUE:

Whether a prospective extraditee may be granted bail.

RULING:

Yes, a prospective extraditee may be granted bail.

According to the Supreme Court now, the trends in international law which can no longer be ignored
are: (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 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, on the other.

First, it has been recognized that individual person is now a valid subject of international law.

Second, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaiming the
right to life, liberty and all the other fundamental rights of every person. While this is not a treaty, the
principles embodied there are now recognized as customarily binding upon the members of the
international community. The principles set forth in that Declaration are part of the law of the land of
the Philippines.

Also, the UN General Assembly also adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) which the Philippines signed and ratified. Fundamental among the rights enshrined therein are
the rights of every person to life, liberty, and due process. Philippines also committed to uphold the
fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person which is now
embodied in Section I2 of Article II of the Constitution. So, the Philippines is under 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 Purganan case limited the exercise of the right to bail in criminal proceedings, in this case of Govt
of Hong Kong held that in light of the various international treaties giving recognition and protection to
human rights, particularly the right to life and liberty, a reexamination of this Court’s ruling in Purganan
is in order as follows:

First, the exercise of the State’s power to deprive an individual of his liberty is not necessarily
limited to criminal proceedings. It is also exercised in administrative proceedings such as
deportation and quarantine where respondents are also detained.

Second, to limit bail to criminal proceedings is to close our eyes to our jurisprudential history.
Philippine jurisprudence has not limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal proceedings
only. The Supreme Court has admitted to bail persons involved, not just in criminal proceedings,
but also during the pendency of administrative proceedings in light of the Philippines’ obligation
to uphold human rights under international law.

 909 case of US v. Go-Sioco, a Chinese facing deportation was granted bail pending his
appeal, holding that while deportation is not a criminal proceeding, some of the
machinery used "is the machinery of criminal law.
  Mejoff v. Director of Prisons and Chirskoff v. Commission of Immigration, where the
foreign nationals pending the finality of an order of deportation may be released on bail
based on the Universal declaration of Human Rights in sustaining the detainee’s right to
bail.

If bail can be granted in deportation cases, then why should not also be allowed in extradition
cases? Also, considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation
cases, why can’t it be invoked in extradition cases? After all, both are administrative proceedings
where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue.

An extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all earmarks of a criminal process. A
potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to
transfer to the demanding state following the proceedings. "Temporary detention" may be a necessary
step in the process of extradition, but the length of time of the detention should be reasonable.

Finally, it held that by the doctrine of pact sunt servanda, the Philippines is required to honor its
extradition treaty with Hong Kong but in so doing, it should not diminish the potential extraditee’s rights
to life, liberty, and due process, more so that these rights are also guaranteed, not only by the
Constitution, but also by international conventions, to which the Philippines is a party. Hence, an
extraditee should not be deprived of his right to bail provided that a certain standard for the grant is
satisfactorily met.

Standard due process in criminal case not applicable to extradition

The Supreme Court in this case also reiterated the doctrine that the standard of due process applicable
in extradition is not the same in criminal proceedings that is premised on the presumption of the
innocence of the accused. Considering that the premise of arrest and detention in extradition is the
possibility of flight of the extraditee being presumed as a fugitive from justice, the applicant has the
burden of proof to show that he is not a flight risk and should be granted bail.

Standard of evidence required in granting or denying bail

Also, the Supreme Court also set the quantum of evidence required in granting or denying bail – that is,
clear and convincing evidence. 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 flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition
court.