GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION vs. OLALIA [G.R. No.

153675] (April 19, 2007)

FACTS:
 Respondent Muñoz was charged of 3 counts of offenses of “accepting an advantage as agent”,
and 7 counts of conspiracy to defraud before the Hong Kong court and Order of Arrest was
upheld.
 DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for the provisional arrest of
private respondent and NBI Agents arrested and detained him.
 The petitioner Hong Kong Administrative Region filed a petition for the extradition of the private
respondent. In the same case, a petition for bail was filed by the private respondent.

 The petition for bail was denied by reason that there was no Philippine law granting the same in
extradition cases and that the respondent was a high “flight risk”. Private respondent filed a
motion for reconsideration which was granted. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not right to bail can be avail in extradition cases.
RULING:
YES. A potential extraditee is entitled to bail.

 In Purganan case, the right to bail was not included in the extradition cases, since it is available
only in criminal proceedings.

 The modern trend in the public international law is the primacy placed on the sanctity of
human rights. Enshrined the Constitution “The state values the dignity of every human
person and guarantees full respect for human rights.” The Philippines therefore, has the
responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every person to liberty and due
process, ensuring that those detained or arrested can participate in the proceeding
before the a court, to enable it to decide without delay on the legality of the detention and
order their release if justified.

 Examination of this Court in the doctrines provided for in the US Vs Purganan provide that The
exercise of the State’s police power to deprive a person of his liberty is not limited to criminal
proceedings and to limit the right to bail in the criminal proceeding would be to close our eyes to
jurisprudential history. Philippines has not limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal
proceedings only.

 This Court has admitted to bail persons who are not involved in criminal proceedings. In fact,
bail has been involved in this jurisdiction to persons in detention during the tendency of
administrative proceedings, taking into cognisance the obligation of the Philippines under
international conventions to uphold human rights.

 In the case at bar, the record show that the respondent, Muñoz has been detained for 2 years
without being convicted in Hongkong. The Philippines has the obligation of ensuring the
individual his right to liberty and due process and should not therefor deprive the extraditee of
his right to bail PROVIDED that certain standards for the grant is satisfactorily met.