Government of Hong Kong v.

Judge Olalia Facts: Juan Muoz was charged before a Hong Kong Court with several counts of offenses in violation of Hong Kong laws. If convicted, he faces a jail ter of ! to "# $ears for each charge. %fter Juan Muoz was arrested in the &hili''ines, the Hong Kong ('ecial %d inistrative )egion filed with the )*C of Manila a 'etition for the e+tradition of Juan Muoz. ,n -ece ber ./, .//", Judge ,lalia of )*C0Manila allowed Juan Muoz to 'ost bail. However, the govern ent of Hong Kong alleged that the trial court co itted grave abuse of discretion a ounting to lac1 or e+cess of jurisdiction in ad itting hi to bail because 2there is nothing in the Constitution or statutor$ law 'roviding that a 'otential e+traditee a right to bail, the right being li ited solel$ to cri inal 'roceedings.3 Issue: 4hether Juan Muoz, a 'otential e+tradite, be granted bail on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight ris1 and will abide with all the orders and 'rocesses of the e+tradition court Held: 5es. In a unani ous decision, the (C re anded to the Manila )*C, to deter ine whether Juan Muoz is entitled to bail on the basis of 2clear and convincing evidence.3 If Muoz is not entitled to such, the trial court should order the cancellation of his bail bond and his i ediate detention6 and thereafter, conduct the e+tradition 'roceedings with dis'atch. 2If bail can be granted in de'ortation cases, we see no justification

wh$ it should not also be allowed in e+tradition cases. 7i1ewise, considering that the 8niversal -eclaration of Hu an )ights a''lies to de'ortation cases, there is no reason wh$ it cannot be invo1ed in e+tradition cases. %fter all, both are ad inistrative 'roceeding where the innocence or guilt of the 'erson detained is not in issue,3 the Court said. Citing the various international treaties giving recognition and 'rotection to hu an rights, the Court saw the need to ree+a ine its ruling in 9overn ent of 8nited (tates of % erica v. Judge &urganan which li ited the e+ercise of the right to bail to cri inal 'roceedings. It said that while our e+tradition law does not 'rovide for the grant of bail to an e+traditee, there is no 'rovision 'rohibiting hi or her fro filing a otion for bail, a right under the Constitution. It further said that even if a 'otential e+tradite is a cri inal, an e+tradition 'roceeding is not b$ its nature cri inal, for it is not 'unish ent for a cri e, even though such 'unish ent a$ follow e+tradition. It added that 2e+tradition is not a trial to deter ine the guilt or innocence of 'otential e+traditee. :or is it a full0blown civil action, but one that is erel$ ad inistrative in character.

Secretary of Justice v. Lantion Facts: (ecretar$ of Justice ;ran1lin -rilon, re'resenting the 9overn ent of the )e'ublic of the &hili''ines, signed in Manila the 2e+tradition *reat$ between the 9overn ent of the &hili''ines and the 9overn ent of the 8.(.%. *he &hili''ine (enate ratified the said *reat$.

,n June "<, "===, the -e'art ent of Justice received fro the -e'art ent of ;oreign %ffairs 8.( :ote >erbale :o. /?.. containing a re@uest for the e+tradition of 'rivate res'ondent Mar1 Ji enez to the 8nited (tates. ,n the sa e da$ 'etitioner designated and authorized a 'anel of attorne$s to ta1e charge of and to handle the case. &ending evaluation of the aforestated e+tradition docu ents, Mar1 Ji enez through counsel, wrote a letter to Justice (ecretar$ re@uesting co'ies of the official e+tradition re@uest fro the 8.( 9overn ent and that he be given a 'le ti e to co ent on the re@uest after he shall have received co'ies of the re@uested 'a'ers but the 'etitioner denied the re@uest for the consistenc$ of %rticle ! of the )&08( A+tradition *reat$ stated in %rticle ! that the &hili''ine 9overn ent ust 'resent the interests of the 8nited (tates in an$ 'roceedings arising out of a re@uest for e+tradition. Issue: 4hether to u'hold a citizenBs due 'rocess rights or the govern entBs ironclad duties under a treat$. Held: &etition dis issed. *he hu an rights of 'erson, whether citizen or alien, and the rights of the accused guaranteed in our Constitution should ta1e 'recedence over treat$ rights clai ed b$ a contracting state. *he duties of the govern ent to the individual deserve 'referential consideration when the$ collide with its treat$ obligations to the govern ent of another state. *his is so although we recognize treaties as a source of binding obligations under generall$ acce'ted 'rinci'les of international law incor'orated in our Constitution as 'art of the law of the land. *he doctrine of incor'oration is a''lied whenever unici'al

tribunals are confronted with situation in which there a''ears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the 'rovision of the constitution or statute of the local state. &etitioner is ordered to furnish Mar1 Ji enez co'ies of the e+tradition re@uest and its su''orting 'a'ers, and to grant hi a reasonable 'eriod within which to file his co ent with su''orting evidence. 28nder the -octrine of Incor'oration, rules of international law for 'art of the law of the land and no further legislative action are needed to a1e such rules a''licable in the do estic s'here. 2*he doctrine of incor'oration is a''lied whenever unici'al tribunals are confronted with situations in which there a''ears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the 'rovisions of the constitution or statute of the local state. 2Afforts should first be e+erted to har onize the , so as to give effect to both since it is to be 'resu ed that unici'al law was enacted with 'ro'er regard for the generall$ acce'ted 'rinci'les of international law in observance of the incor'oration clause in the above cited constitutional 'rovision. 2In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be ade between a rule of international law and a unici'al law, juris'rudence dictates that unici'al law should be u'held b$ the unici'al courts, for the reason that such courts are organs of unici'al law and are accordingl$ bound b$ it in all circu stances. 2*he fact that international law has been ade 'art of the law of the land does not 'ertain to or i 'l$ the 'ri ac$ of international law over national or unici'al law in the unici'al s'here. *he doctrine of incor'oration, as a''lied in ost countries, decrees that

rules of international law are given e@ual standing with, but are not su'erior to, national legislative enact ents. %ccordingl$, the 'rinci'le le+ 'osterior derogate 'riori ta1es effect C a treat$ a$ re'eal a statute and a statute a$ re'eal a treat$. In states where the Constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the )e'ublic of the &hili''ines, both statutes and treaties a$ be invalidated if the$ are in conflict with the constitution.

Secretary of Justice v. Muoz Facts: *he Hong Kong Magistrate Court at Aastern Magistrac$ issued a warrant for the arrest of res'ondent Juan %ntonio Muoz for seven D!E counts of acce'ting an advantage as an agent and seven D!E counts of cons'irac$ to defraud, contrar$ to the co on law of Hong Kong. *he -e'art ent of Justice received a re@uest for the 'rovisional arrest of the res'ondent fro the Mutual 7egal %ssistance 8nit, International 7aw -ivision of the Hong Kong -e'art ent of Justice 'ursuant to %rticle ""D"E of the )&0Hong Kong A+tradition %gree ent. 8'on a''lication of the :FI, )*C of Manila issued an ,rder granting the a''lication for 'rovisional arrest and issuing the corres'onding ,rder of %rrest. Conse@uentl$, res'ondent was arrested 'ursuant to the said order, and is currentl$ detained at the :FI detention cell. )es'ondent filed with the Court of %''eals, a 'etition for certiorari, 'rohibition and anda us with a''lication for 'reli inar$ andator$ injunction andGor writ of habeas cor'us assailing the validit$ of the ,rder of %rrest. *he Court of %''eals rendered a decision declaring the ,rder of %rrest null and void on the grounds, a ong others that the re@uest for 'rovisional arrest and the acco 'an$ing warrant of arrest and su ar$ of facts were unauthenticated and ere facsi ile co'ies which are insufficient to for a basis for the

issuance of the ,rder of %rrest. *hus, 'etitioner Justice (erafin ). Cuevas, in his ca'acit$ as the (ecretar$ of the -e'art ent of Justice, lost no ti e in filing the instant 'etition. Issue: 4hether the re@uest for 'rovisional arrest of res'ondent and its acco 'an$ing docu ents ust be authenticated Held: *he re@uest for 'rovisional arrest of res'ondent and its acco 'an$ing docu ents is valid des'ite lac1 of authentication. *here is no re@uire ent for the authentication of a re@uest for 'rovisional arrest and its acco 'an$ing docu ents. *he enu eration in the 'rovision of )&0Hong Kong A+tradition %gree ent does not s'ecif$ that these docu ents ust be authenticated co'ies. *his a$ be gleaned fro the fact that while %rticle ""D"E does not re@uire the acco 'an$ing docu ents of a re@uest for 'rovisional arrest to be authenticated, %rticle = of the sa e A+tradition %gree ent a1es authentication a re@uisite for ad ission in evidence of an$ docu ent acco 'an$ing a re@uest for surrender or e+tradition. In other words, authentication is re@uired for the re@uest for surrender or e+tradition but not for the re@uest for 'rovisional arrest. *he )&0Hong Kong A+tradition %gree ent, as the$ are worded, serves the 'ur'ose sought to be achieved b$ treat$ sti'ulations for 'rovisional arrest. *he 'rocess of 're'aring a for al re@uest for e+tradition and its acco 'an$ing docu ents, and trans itting the through di'lo atic channels, is not onl$ ti e0consu ing but also lea1age0'rone. *here is naturall$ a great li1elihood of flight b$ cri inals who get an inti ation of the 'ending re@uest for their e+tradition. *o solve this 'roble , s'eedier initial ste's in the for of treat$ sti'ulations for 'rovisional arrest were for ulated. *hus, it is an acce'ted 'ractice for the re@uesting state to rush its re@uest in the for of a tele+

or di'lo atic cable. )es'ondentBs reliance on 9arvida v. (ales, Jr. is is'laced. *he 'roscri'tion against the ad ission of a 'leading that has been trans itted b$ facsi ile achine has no a''lication in the case at bar for obvious reasons. ;irst, the instant case does not involve a 'leading6 and second, unli1e the C,MA7AC, )ules of &rocedure which do not sanction the filing of a 'leading b$ eans of a facsi ile achine, &.-.:o. "/H= and the )& Hong Kong A+tradition %gree ent do not 'rohibit the trans ission of a re@uest for 'rovisional arrest b$ eans of a fa+ achine

iraogo v. !"e #"ili$$ine !rut" %ommission Facts: &ursuant to the slogan 2Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap3 'osed b$ &res. :o$no$ %@uino in his ca 'aign for &residential election, he created &hili''ine *ruth Co ission b$ virtue of A+ecutive ,rder :o. ". (aid e+ecutive order was @uestioned b$ herein 'etitioners as violative of e@ual 'rotection clause insofar as its objective is to investigate large scale graft and corru'tion during the 'revious ad inistration under for er 'resident %rro$o. &etitioners contend that it did not eet the re@uisites for a valid classification as it singles out the 'revious ad inistration as its sole object. )es'ondent, on the other hand, defended that it was based on wides'read re'orts of large scale graft and corru'tion in the 'revious ad inistration which have eroded 'ublic confidence in 'ublic institutions. It further contends that the segregation of the 'receding ad inistration as the object of the fact0finding is warranted b$ the realit$ that unli1e with ad inistrations long gone, the current ad inistration will ost li1el$ to bear the i ediate conse@uence of the 'olicies of the 'revious ad inistration. Issue:

4,: A+ecutive ,rder :o. " violates the constitutional guarant$ of e@ual 'rotection of the laws Held: 5es. A+ecutive ,rder :o. " should be struc1 down as violative of the e@ual 'rotection clause. *he clear andate of the envisioned truth co ission is to investigate and find out the truth Iconcerning the re'orted cases of graft and corru'tion during the 'revious ad inistrationI onl$. *he e@ual 'rotection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows classification. Classification in law, as in the other de'art ents of 1nowledge or 'ractice, is the grou'ing of things in s'eculation or 'ractice because the$ agree with one another in certain 'articulars. % law is not invalid because of si 'le ine@ualit$. *he ver$ idea of classification is that of ine@ualit$, so that it goes without sa$ing that the ere fact of ine@ualit$ in no anner deter ines the atter of constitutionalit$. %ll that is re@uired of a valid classification is that it be reasonable, which eans that the classification should be based on substantial distinctions which a1e for real differences, that it ust be ger ane to the 'ur'ose of the law6 that it ust not be li ited to e+isting conditions onl$6 and that it ust a''l$ e@uall$ to each e ber of the class. *his Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the classification or distinction is based on a reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not 'al'abl$ arbitrar$. *he %rro$o ad inistration is but just a e ber of a class, that is, a class of 'ast ad inistrations. It is not a class of its own. :ot to include 'ast ad inistrations si ilarl$ situated constitutes arbitrariness which the e@ual 'rotection clause cannot sanction. (uch discri inating differentiation clearl$ reverberates to label the co ission as a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective

retribution.