Bail on potential extraditee

Juan Muñoz was charged before a Hong Kong Court with several counts of offenses in violation of Hong Kong laws. If convicted, he faces a jail term of 7 to 14 years for each charge. After Juan Muñoz was arrested in the Philippines, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for the extradition of Juan Muñoz. On December 20, 2001, Judge X of RTC-Manila allowed Juan Muñoz to post bail. However, the government of Hong Kong alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting him to bail because “there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential extraditee a right to bail, the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings.” May Juan Muñoz, a potential extradite, be granted bail on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. In a unanimous decision the SC remanded to the Manila RTC, to determine whether Juan Muñoz is entitled to bail on the basis of “clear and convincing evidence.” If Muñoz is not entitled to such, the trial court should order the cancellation of his bail bond and his immediate detention; and thereafter, conduct the extradition proceedings with dispatch.

“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 reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition cases. After all, both are administrative proceeding where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue,” the Court said.

Citing the various international treaties giving recognition and protection to human rights, the Court saw the need to reexamine its ruling in Government of United States of America v. Judge Purganan which limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal proceedings. (visit fellester.blogspot.com)

It said that while our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extraditee, there is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right under the Constitution.

It further said that even if a potential extradite is a criminal, an extradition proceeding is not by its nature criminal, for it is not punishment for a crime, even though such punishment may follow extradition. It added that “extradition is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of potential extraditee. Nor is it a full-blown civil action, but one that is merely administrative in character. (GR No. 153675, Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Judge Olalia, Jr. and Muñoz, April 19, 2007)

Note: In Government of United States of America v. Judge Purganan, September 24, 2002, The SC ruled that Mark Jimenez is not entitled to the right to bail and provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending except upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances.