Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs Judge Olalia and Juan

Antonio Munoz
GR 153675, April 19, 2007
Facts:
Juan Munoz was charged before Hong Kong Court with various offenses like
bribery and violations of common law of Hong Kong.
On August 1997 and October 1999, warrant of arrest was issued against Munoz.
In September 1999, he was arrested and detained by NBI.
November 1999, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region filed with RTC of
Manila a petition for the extradition of Munoz.
The petition for bail was granted by the respondent judge Olalia.
Govt of Hong Kong opposed the grant of bail and alleged that the trial court
committed grave abuse of discretion in granting such.
Defenses:
o Government of Hong Kong avers that there is nothing in the Constitution
or statutory law which grants an extraditee the right to bail.
o Respondent judge Olalia contends that extradition is a harsh process
resulting in prolonged deprivation of liberty. Under section 13 of the
constitution provides that right to bail shall not be impaired.
Issue:

Whether or not bail can be granted to persons under extradition proceeding?

Held:
Yes.
The SC pointed out trends that cannot be ignored.
1. Importance of international law;
2. Human rights is now given a higher value in international sphere;
3. Signatory countries of universal human rights shall fulfill the obligations
provided therein; and
4. It is the duty of the court to balance the rights of individual under
fundamental law on one hand and the law on extradition on the other.
As held in the case of Purganan, the court made the following observations:
First, the exercise of the States power to deprive an individual liberty is not
necessarily limited to criminal proceedings. Respondents in administrative proceedings,
such as deportation and quarantine have likewise been detained. Second, to limit bail to
criminal proceedings would be to close our eyes to our jurisprudential history. The
Supreme Court admitted bail persons who are not involved in criminal proceedings.
Clearly, the right of a prospective extradite to apply for bail in this jurisdiction
must be viewed in the light of various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning
respect for the promotion and protection of human rights. Under these treaties, the

presumption lies in favor of human liberty. Thus, the Philippines should see to it that
the right to liberty of every individual is impaired.
Records show that private respondent was arrested on September 23, 1999 and
remained incarcerated until December 20, 2001, when the trial court ordered his
admission to bail. In other words, he had been detained for over 2 years without having
been convicted any crime. By any standard such an extended period of detention is a
serious deprivation of his fundamental right to liberty. In fact, it was this prolonged
deprivation of liberty which prompted the extradition court to grant him bail.