Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, represented by the Phil. Dept of Justice (DOJ) vs.

Hon. Felixberto T. Olalia, Jr. and Juan Antonio Muoz

G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007
(Procedural Due Process in Extradition Proceedings)
Facts:
This is a petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the orders of the Regional Trial Court alleging that
such were issued by the respondent judge with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction as there is no provision in the Constitution granting bail to a potential extraditee.
Prior to this, the petitioner sent a request to the DOJ for the provisional arrest of private respondent
and later on a petition for his extradition on bribery and conspiracy charges. The private-respondent on his
part filed a petition for bail which was rejected by then presiding Judge Bernardo, Jr., holding that there is no
Philippine law granting bail on extradition cases, the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings.
However, after Judge Bernardo, Jr. inhibited himself from further hearing the case, the successor judge, herein
judge-respondent, granted the motion for reconsideration and allowed the private respondent to post bail.
The private respondent further commented that his right to bail is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.
Issues:
Whether or not the following section of Article III of the Constitution excludes extradition
proceedings.
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 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.
Resolution:
The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that while our extradition law does not provide for the grant
of bail to an extraditee, there is also no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right to
due process under the Constitution.
It is true that the above provision may be more applicable to criminal proceedings and extradition
proceedings are not criminal in nature, but just like deportation proceedings it is also used as a machinery of
criminal law. That is why, in a case where a Chinese was facing deportation for failure to secure the necessary
certificate of registration, the Court allowed him to post bail pending his appeal, ruling that To refuse him bail
1
is to treat him as a person who has committed the most serious crime known to the law.
Additionally, while the Philippines is bound to honor its obligations under the Extradition Treaty it
entered into with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, it should not diminish a potential extraditees
rights to life, liberty, and due process which are not only guaranteed by our Constitution but also by
international conventions.
And although the Court previously held that the constitutional provision on bail is available only in
2
criminal proceedings and not to extradition proceedings, it does not ignore trends in public international law
which heavily puts importance on the rights of individual person.

1
2

US vs. Go-Sioco 12 Phil 490

Government of United States of America vs. Hon. Guillermo G. Purganan & Mark B. Jimenez 389 SCRA 623