GOVLRNMLN1 OI HONG KONG SPLCIAL ADMINIS1RA1IVL RLGION,

L1C. v. ILLIXBLR1O 1. OLALIA, JR., et al.

G.R. No. JS367S, J9 April 2007, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. (Ln Banc)

!bite ovr etraaitiov tar aoe. vot roriae for tbe gravt of bait to av etraaitee, borerer, tbere i. vo
rori.iov robibitivg biv or ber frov fitivg a votiov for bait, a rigbt to ave roce.. vvaer tbe Cov.titvtiov.

Juan Antonio Munoz was charged beore the long Kong Court with three ,3,
counts o the oense o accepting an adantage as agent,` in iolation o the Preention o
Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 o long Kong and aces seen ,, counts o the oense o
conspiracy to deraud, penalized by the common law o long Kong. 1hereater, warrants
o arrest were issued against him. 1he DOJ, ater receiing rom the long Kong
Department o Justice a request or the proisional arrest o Munoz, orwarded the same to
the National Bureau o Inestigation ,NBI, which, in turn, iled with the R1C o Manila an
application or the proisional arrest o Munoz. Subsequently, the R1C issued an Order o
Arrest against Munoz. 1hat same day, the NBI agents arrested and detained him. 1he
Court o Appeals declared the Order o Arrest oid ater Munoz iled a petition questioning
its alidity. 1he Supreme Court reersed the decision o CA. Meanwhile, long Kong
Special Administratie Region iled with the R1C a petition or the extradition o
Munoz. Munoz iled, in the same case, a petition or bail which was opposed by long
Kong Special Administratie Region. Ater hearing, an order denying the petition or bail
was issued, holding that there is no Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and that
Munoz is a high light risk.` Munoz iled a motion or reconsideration. Munoz was
allowed to post bail. long Kong Special Administratie Region alleged that the trial court
committed grae abuse o discretion in admitting Munoz to bail, that there is nothing in the
Constitution or statutory law proiding that a potential extraditee has a right to bail, the right
being limited solely to criminal proceedings.

ISSULS:

1) \hether or not the Constitution or a statutory law proides that a potential
extraditee has a right to bail
2) \hether or not the right to bail is limited solely to criminal proceedings
3) \hether the standard o proo required in granting or denying bail in extradition
proceedings is proo beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance o eidence

HLLD:

Petition DISMISSLD. Case is remanded to the trial court to determine whether
Munoz may be granted bail on the basis o clear and conincing eidence.

1he modern trend in public international law is the primacy placed on the
worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human rights. 1he Philippine
authorities are under obligation to make available to every person under detention
such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. 1hese remedies
include the right to be admitted to bail.

1his Court cannot ignore the ollowing trends in international law: ,1, the growing
importance o the indiidual person in public international law who, in the 20
th
century, has
gradually attained global recognition, ,2, the higher alue now being gien to human rights in
the international sphere, ,3, the corresponding duty o countries to obsere these uniersal
human rights in ulilling their treaty obligations, and ,4, the duty o this Court to balance
the rights o the indiidual under our undamental law, on one hand, and the law on
extradition, on the other. 1he Philippines, along with the other members o the amily o
nations, committed to uphold the undamental human rights as well as alue the worth and
dignity o eery person. 1his commitment is enshrined in Section II, Article II o our
Constitution which proides: 1he State alues the dignity o eery human person and
guarantees ull respect or human rights.`

Reexamination of this Court's ruling in Purganan is in order, in light of the various
international treaties giving recognition and protection to human rights, particularly
the right to life and liberty.

In Corervvevt of |vitea tate. of .verica r. ov. Cvittervo C. Pvrgavav ava Mar/ .
]iveve,

this Court, held that the constitutional proision on bail does not apply to extradition
proceedings. It is aailable only in criminal proceedings.`

ir.t, we note that the exercise o the State`s power to deprie an indiidual o his
liberty is not necessarily limited to criminal proceedings. Respondents in administratie
proceedings, such as deportation and quarantine, hae likewise been detained.
ecova, to limit bail to criminal proceedings would be to close our eyes to our
jurisprudential history. 1his Court has admitted to bail persons who are not inoled in
criminal proceedings. In act, bail has been allowed in this jurisdiction to persons in
detention during the pendency o administratie proceedings, taking into consideration the
obligation o the Philippines under international conentions to uphold human rights.

Lxtradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all earmarks of a
criminal process.

But while extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it is characterized by the
ollowing: ,a, it entails a depriation o liberty on the part o the potential extraditee and
,b, the means employed to attain the purpose o extradition is also the machinery o
criminal law.` 1his is shown by Section 6 o P.D. No. 1069 ,1he Philippine Lxtradition
Law, which mandates the immediate arrest and temporary detention o the accused` i such
will best sere the interest o justice.` \e urther note that Section 20 allows the
requesting state in case o urgency` to ask or the proisional arrest o the accused,
pending receipt o the request or extradition` and that release rom proisional arrest shall
not prejudice re-arrest and extradition o the accused i a request or extradition is receied
subsequently.`

1he potential extraditee must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is
not a flight risk and will abide by all the orders and processes of the extradition court.

An extradition proceeding being .vi geveri., the standard o proo required in granting
or denying bail can neither be the proo beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the
standard o proo o preponderance o eidence in ciil cases. \hile administratie in
character, the standard o substantial eidence used in administratie cases cannot likewise
apply gien the object o extradition law which is to preent the prospectie extraditee rom
leeing our jurisdiction. In his Separate Opinion in Pvrgavav, then Associate Justice, now
Chie Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard which he termed clear and
conincing eidence` should be used in granting bail in extradition cases. According to him,
this standard should be lower than proo beyond reasonable doubt but higher than
preponderance o eidence. In this case, there is no showing that Munoz presented
eidence to show that he is not a light risk.