Highly contentious issues

In the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez, a.k.a. Mario B. Crespo, pursuant to the RP-US Extradition Treaty and P.D. 1069 otherwise known as the Extradition Law, is he entitled: (1) to notice and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be issued, and (2) to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending? These are the highly contentious issues resolved by the Supreme Court. But its resolution did not end the controversy as it has been arrogantly assailed by Jimenez's colleagues in Congress and some professed civil libertarians/constitutionalists, as violative of his basic rights. Did the SC culpably deprive Jimenez of his Constitutional rights? Let us see.

The US wants the Philippines to surrender Jimenez to them because he has been accused and has a pending warrant of arrest issued by the US District Court of Southern Florida for violation of several provisions of the US Code particularly; conspiracy to defraud the US Government, tax evasion, wire fraud, false statements and illegal campaign contributions. Hence the Philip-pine Government thru the Department of Justice filed a petition for extradition of Jimenez before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila with a prayer for his immediate arrest.

Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Jimenez filed before it an urgent motion praying that the application for arrest warrant be set for hearing. The RTC granted this motion of Jimenez. After the hearing on the issuance of the arrest warrant and before the RTC could resolve it, Jimenez alternatively asked the RTC, that in case a warrant should be issued, he be allowed to post bail in the amount of P100,000. The RTC also set this alternative prayer for hearing. Thereafter the RTC issued a warrant for the arrest of Jimenez but also fixed a bail of P1 million in cash for his temporary liberty. So after Jimenez surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond, the RTC granted him provisional liberty.

The DOJ questioned these actions of the RTC before the Supreme Court. It prayed for the lifting of the bail order, the cancellation of the bond and the taking of Jimenez into legal custody. The DOJ argued that the RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion in (1) first hearing a potential extraditee before issuing an arrest warrant, and (2) granting the prayer for bail and allowing Jimenez to go on provisional liberty.

Was the DOJ correct?

The arguments and contentions of the contending parties are indeed quite strong and forceful especially in this case of first impression where there seems to be a clash between the State’s interest to comply with an extradition treaty with another country and its equally crucial duty to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens to liberty and due process.

But eight justices of the fourteen member Supreme Court sitting en banc sustained the stand of the DOJ. Three justices said that the case should be remanded to the RTC so that it can follow the proper procedure and higher standards in determining the right to bail of Jimenez. While the other three justices believed that the DOJ is not correct and its petition should be denied or dismissed.

The majority principally believed that extradition proceeding is sui generis or the only one of its own kind. It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all the rights of the accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The process of extradition does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused. His guilt or innocence will be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be extradited. Hence, as a rule, constitutional rights relevant to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot be invoked by an extraditee. The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings in court is only to determine whether the extradition request complies with the Extradition Treaty, and whether the person sought is extraditable.

Both under the Extradition Law (Sec. 6 PD 1069) and the Constitution (Sec. 2, Art. III), notice and hearing are not necessary before the issuance of a warrant of arrest particularly of an extraditee like Jimenez. Under PD 1069, the Judge may issue a warrant for the immediate arrest of the accused if it appears to him that said arrest and temporary detention will best serve the ends of justice. The use of the word "immediate" to qualify the arrest would be rendered nugatory by setting for hearing and issuance of the arrest warrant. The court is expected merely to get a prima facie finding as regards the arrest. It is not expected to make an exhaustive determination, as shown by the phrase "if it appears" which conveys that accuracy is not as important as speed at such an early stage. Besides, the Constitution itself requires only the examination of the complainants and the witnesses they may produce to determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants. There is no requirement to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of the warrants of arrest.

Jimenez as an extraditee is not also entitled to bail. There is no provision in the Constitution granting the right to bail to a person who is the subject of an extradition request and arrest warrant. The Constitutional provision on bail as well as Sec. 4, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine Criminal Laws. It does not apply to extradition proceedings because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal. The Constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal proceedings. His detention prior to the conclusion of the extradition proceedings does not deprive him of liberty without the due process of law. The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. It does not call for a prior opportunity to be heard. Where the circumstances – such as those present in an extradition case – call for it, a subsequent opportunity to be heard is enough. In this case, Jimenez will be given full opportunity to be heard subsequently when the extradition court hears the Petition for Extradition. Hence there is no violation of his right to due process and fundamental fairness (US Gov’t represented by DOJ vs. Purganan et al. G.R. 148571 Sept. 24, 2002).

The Supreme Court in whom the judicial power is primarily vested, has spoken through majority of its members. Under our system, majority rules. Others may disagree with its decision. They may have their own separate and dissenting opinions like the other justices. They may believe that Jimenez may have been deprived of his most basic fundamental human rights and his dignity and worth as a human person. But the SC decision must be respected and followed. There is nothing blatantly wrong with it. The decision is sound, reasonable, fair and legally well founded. It does not help our judicial system any for the colleagues of Jimenez in Congress, to threaten the Justices with impeachment. Or for certain expert in Constitutional law to assail the decision before the press with some simplistic one liners that only tend to confuse. Sure, Jimenez is not yet convicted. But he will not be imprisoned as a convict, together with other convicted criminals as insinuated by a noted Constitutionalist. He will only be detained in the City jail. The City jail is precisely for persons whose cases are still pending in court. Being a Congressman does not entitle him to special treatment. Indeed, as Congressman he owes it to his constituents not to oppose his extradition so that he can immediately clear his name in the US.

* * *

E-mail us at [email protected].