Arguing on different wavelengths

Before our Congressmen continue spending their precious time and further waste the tax-payers money on the controversy surrounding one of their colleagues, Mark B. Jimenez and his extradition case, they should perhaps take a closer look and a more in depth analysis of the Supreme Court decision on the matter. Instead of assailing the said decision and even threatening the Justices with impeachment allegedly because the latter have deprived their colleague of the most basic Constitutional right to bail and to provisional liberty, they should more carefully study the reasons behind the ruling.Certainly, majority of our Justices could not have committed such a glaring and unmitigated fallacy being attributed to them by our Congressmen.

A stricter scrutiny readily shows that the Supreme Court merely relied on the existing law (PD 1069 or the Philipine Extradition Law) in carrying out the extradition treaty with the United States.In applying said law, there would have been no controversy even among the Justices themselves if there is no ambiguity at all that necessitates an interpretation particularly with regards to the rights of an extraditee in extradition proceedings. Indeed there would have been less justiciable controversies and court litigations if laws passed by our legislature are clear and simple enough so as not to become the "tools" in the practice of law by lawyers out to earn fat fees.The sad reality in our present system is that most of our legislations can not stand the test of clarity so necessary in preventing controversies.

PD 1069 or the Extradition Law has been with us since martial law.That is almost more than twenty five years ago. During all those years our Congress has done nothing to amend said law so as to clarify its ambiguities particularly on the arrest and the right of an extraditee to provisional liberty.If one of its members did not have a brush with the said law,its attention would not have been attracted as intensely as it is now. The fault therefore lies more on our Congressmen for sleeping on their job rather than on the Supreme Court who is merely doing their job of interpreting an ambiguous law.Instead of assailing the SC decision and subtly exerting pressure on the Justices to change their minds,our Congressmen should take steps to change the law.

The truth is that the SC did not absolutely and completely deprive Jimenez of his right to bail as some of our Congressmen mistakenly and vehemently charged.The difference between the majority opinion of eight justices and the dissenting justices who insisted that Jimenez has a right to bail, is more apparent than real.The "no bail" rule in extradition proceedings enunciated by the majority only sets forth the general rule; that bail is not a matter of right in extradition cases.The same majority however also declared in almost the same breadth that, "to best serve the ends of justice, after a potential extraditee has been arrested and placed under custody of the law, bail may be applied for and granted as an exception only upon a clear and convincing showing" by the said extraditee (1) that there is no flight risk and no danger to the community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian or compelling circumstances.The granting of bail is subject to judicial discretion in the context of the peculiar facts of each case. Such ruling of the majority is no different from the minority’s declaration that "the power to admit bail exists in extradition proceedings although as a matter of policy, it may only be granted under exceptional circumstances"There seems to be a difference only because the majority emphasizes the general rule while the minority pounds on the exception. Both agree that bail may be granted. They only differ in the procedure. The majority says that the application for bail should be made only after the arrest and at extradition proceeding itself while the minority insists that the right may be availed of even before he is arrested and before the start of the extradition hearing.According to the majority, Jimenez should be arrested and detained first then he could apply for bail if he can show the exceptional circumstances abovementioned by clear and convincing evidence.The minority is of the opinion that he need not be arrested as he could immediately apply for bail.

As the majority said, "Courts should not allow contortions, delays and "overdue process" every little step of the way, lest these summary extradition proceedings become not only inutile but also sources of international embarassment due to our inability to comply in good faith with a treaty partner’s simple request to return" an extraditee. Indeed the best and only legal move of Jimenez to evade arrest and detention is to allow himself to be extradited, go to the States, post bail there and clear his name.

It also bears stressing that the Jimenez case does not establish a sweeping and precedent-setting rule in all extradition proceedings regarding the right to bail or the apparent conflict between a treaty and a constitution.The granting of bail in extradition cases is a matter addressed to the discretion of the court depending on the facts and circumstances of person,time and place.The Jimenez ruling is the "law" in the case of Jimenez only.It may not be invoked in other cases which may have different sets of facts.So enough of these motherhood statements about protecting the fundamental rights of Filipinos from encroachments by a foreign power.

* * *

E-mail us at [email protected]