Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

1. Distinguish Extradition from Deportation.

EXTRADITION
Extradition is the surrender of a fugitive by one state to another where he
is wanted for prosecution or, if already convicted, for punishment. The surrender
is made at the request of the latter state on the basis of an extradition treaty.

DEPORTATION
Deportation is the expulsion of an alien who is considered undesirable by
the local state, usually but not necessarily to his own state. The deportation is the
unilateral act of the local state and is made in its own interests.















2. Discuss the laws that provide for Extradition and Deportation in the
Philippines. Provide the procedures undertaken for both.

Overview of the Philippine Law on Deportation

The law in point is Philippine Immigration Act of 1940. It authorizes the
Immigration Commissioner to issue Mission Orders against aliens found to have
violated Philippine immigration laws. Arrest Warrants can also be issued against
aliens whose activities threatens the national security or whose presence alone
poses a serious threat to public health, public safety and national security, and
public morals.


Legal Remedies

The detained alien may file a Petition for Voluntary Deportation before the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation or file a Petition for Habeas Corpus before
the Regular Courts if the arrest was patently illegal or has been founded on an
unsubstantiated immigration law violation.

The detained Alien may also choose to face trial in a Summary Deportation
Proceedings, submit a Position Paper and/or file a Motion of Dismiss. In the
meantime, he/she may also file Petition for Bail for his/her temporary liberty pending
Trial.


Two Types of Deportation Proceedings

Deportation Proceedings in the Philippines are governed by two different
statutory provisions.

The first type of deportation proceedings is governed by the Revised
Administrative Code; Authority to deport is vested in the President, the
proceedings being undertaken by the Deportation Board created by Executive
Order No. 33 of May 29, 1936, and is placed for administrative purposes under
the Department of Justice.

The second type, by the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 as
amended. Authority to deport lies in the Bureau of Immigration and the
proceeding are undertaken by the Bureaus Board of Special Inquiry.


Overview of the Philippine Law on Extradition

Our Constitution declares that the Philippines adheres to the policy of
cooperation with all nations. This cooperation necessarily includes assistance in
other countries fights against corruption, subject to Philippine domestic laws,
treaty obligations and generally accepted principles of international law. Like
most countries, the Philippines abhors corruption because of its devastating
effect on the social and economic development of nations and their people.

Presidential Decree No. (P.D.) 1069, Prescribing the Procedure for the
Extradition of Persons Who Have Committed Crimes in a Foreign Country was
issued by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos on January 13, 1977
At Present, the Philippines have thirteen (13) extradition treaties with the
following countries:
1. Indonesia (1976)
2. Thailand (1981)
3. Australia (1988)
4. Canada (1989)
5. Switzerland (1989)
6. Micronesia (1990)
7. Korea (1993)
8. USA (1994)
9. Hong Kong SAR (1995)
10. China (2001)
11. Spain (2004)
12. India (2004)
13. UK (2009)

Procedure for Extradition
A request for extradition is first presented through diplomatic channels to
the state of refuge. This request will be accompanied by the necessary papers
relative to the identity of the person sought and the crime he is alleged to have
committed or of which he has already been convicted. Upon receipt of this
request, the state of refuge will conduct a judicial investigation to ascertain if the
crime is covered by the extradition treaty and if there is a prima facie case
against the fugitive according to its own laws. If there is, a warrant of surrender
will be drawn and the fugitive will be delivered to the demanding state.
CASES

PAUL JOSEPH WRIGHT VS CA
GR 113213
August 15, 1994

FACTS:
Australia and the Government of the Philippines in the suppression of crime,
entered into a Treaty of Extradition on the 7th of March 1988. The said treaty was
ratified in accordance with the provisions of Section 21, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution in a Resolution adopted by the Senate on September 10, 1990 and
became effective 30 days after both States notified each other in writing that the
respective requirements for the entry into force of the Treaty have been complied with.
Petitioner contends that the provision of the Treaty giving retroactive effect to the
extradition treaty amounts to an ex post facto law which violates Section 21 of Article VI
of the Constitution.

ISSUE:
Can an extradition treaty be applied retroactively?


HELD:
Applying the constitutional principle, the Court has held that the prohibition
applies only to criminal legislation which affects the substantial rights of the accused.
This being so, there is no absolutely no merit in petitioner's contention that the ruling of
the lower court sustaining the Treaty's retroactive application with respect to offenses
committed prior to the Treaty's coming into force and effect, violates the Constitutional
prohibition against ex post facto laws. As the Court of Appeals correctly concluded, the
Treaty is neither a piece of criminal legislation nor a criminal procedural statute. It
merely provides for the extradition of persons wanted for prosecution of an offense or a
crime which offense or crime was already committed or consummated at the time the
treaty was ratified.


PAUL JOSEPH WRIGHT VS CA
GR 113213
August 15, 1994

DOCTRINE / PRINCIPLES:
A paramount principle of the law of extradition provides that a State may not
surrender any individual for any offense not included in a treaty of extradition. This
principle arises from the reality of extradition as a derogation of sovereignty. Extradition
is an intrusion into the territorial integrity of the host State and a delimitation of the
sovereign power of the State within its own territory. The act of extraditing amounts to a
"delivery by the State of a person accused or convicted of a crime, to another State
within whose territorial jurisdiction, actual or constructive, it was committed and which
asks for his surrender with a view to execute justice." As it is an act of "surrender" of an
individual found in a sovereign State to another State which demands his surrender, an
act of extradition, even with a treaty rendered executory upon ratification by appropriate
authorities, does not imposed an obligation to extradite on the requested State until the
latter has made its own determination of the validity of the requesting State's demand, in
accordance with the requested State's own interests.
The principles of international law recognize no right of extradition apart from that
arising from treaty. Pursuant to these principles, States enter into treaties of extradition
principally for the purpose of bringing fugitives of justice within the ambit of their laws,
under conventions recognizing the right of nations to mutually agree to surrender
individuals within their jurisdiction and control, and for the purpose of enforcing their
respective municipal laws. Since punishment of fugitive criminals is dependent mainly
on the willingness of host State to apprehend them and revert them to the State where
their offenses were committed, jurisdiction over such fugitives and subsequent
enforcement of penal laws can be effectively accomplished only by agreement between
States through treaties of extradition.






SECRETARY OF JUSTICE VS JUDGE LANTION
GR 139465
JANUARY 18, 2000

FACTS:

On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign
Affairs of the United States requesting for the extradition of Mark Jimenez for various
crimes in violation of US laws. In compliance with the related municipal law, specifically
Presidential Decree No. 1069 Prescribing the Procedure for Extradition of Persons
Who Have committed Crimes in a Foreign Country and the established Extradition
Treaty Between the Government of the Philippines and the Government of the United
States of America, the department proceeded with the designation of a panel of
attorneys to conduct a technical evaluation and assessment as provided for in the
presidential decree and the treaty.

The respondent requested for a copy of the official extradition request as well as the
documents and papers submitted therein. The petitioner denied the request as it alleges
that such information is confidential in nature and that it is premature to provide such
document as the process is not a preliminary investigation but a mere evaluation.
Therefore, the constitutional rights of the accused are not yet available.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not private respondent, Mark B. Jimenez, be granted access to the official
extradition request and documents with an opportunity to file a comment on or
opposition thereto

2. Whether or not private respondents entitlement to notice and hearing during the
evaluation stage of the proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties of the
Philippine Government under the RP-US Extradition Treaty



SECRETARY OF JUSTICE VS JUDGE LANTION
GR 139465
JANUARY 18, 2000

HELD:

The Supreme Court ruled that the private respondent be furnished a copy of the
extradition request and its supporting papers and to give him a reasonable period of
time within which to file his comment with supporting evidence. In this case, there exists
a clear conflict between the obligation of the Philippine Government to comply with the
provisions of the treaty and its equally significant role of protection of its citizens of its
right of due process.
The processes outlined in the treaty and in the presidential decree already pose an
impending threat to a prospective extraditees liberty as early as the evaluation stage. It
is not an imagined threat to his liberty, but a very imminent one. On the other hand,
granting due process to the extradition case causes delay in the process.
The rule of pacta sunt servanda, one of the oldest and most fundamental maxims of
international law, requires the parties to a treaty to keep their agreement therein in good
faith. The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are
confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of
international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of a local state. Efforts
should be done to harmonize them. In a situation, however, where the conflict is
irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of international law and
municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the
municipal courts. The doctrine of incorporation decrees that rules of international law
are given equal standing, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments.
In this case, there is no conflict between international law and municipal law. The United
States and the Philippines share a mutual concern about the suppression and
punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions. At the same time, both States
accord common due process protection to their respective citizens. In fact, neither the
Treaty nor the Extradition Law precludes the rights of due process from a prospective
extradite.

US GOVERNMENT VS PURUNGAN
GR 148571
SEPTEMBER 24, 2002

FACTS:
The United States of America, pursuant to the existing RP-US extradition treaty,
requested the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez. Upon receipt of the request, the secretary
of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate
action. In such event, the RTC held that Jimenez shell be deprived of the right to notice
and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. Thereafter the US
government, through DOJ, filed Petition for Extradition and Jimenezs immediate arrest,
to avoid flight. Before the RTC could render its decision, Jimenez filed an "Urgent
Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion," praying that his application for an arrest warrant be set
for hearing, which was granted. During which, the lower court issued its questioned July
3, 2001 Order, directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his
temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash. After Jimenez had surrendered his
passport and posted the required cash bond, he was granted provisional liberty via the
challenged Order dated July 4, 2001. Thus, Petition prays for the lifting of the bail Order,
the cancellation of the bond, and the taking of Jimenez into legal custody.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his
arrest can be issued.

Whether or not he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition
proceedings are pending.





US GOVERNMENT VS PURUNGAN
GR 148571
SEPTEMBER 24, 2002

HELD:
By nature, extradition proceedings are not equivalent to a criminal case in which guilt or
innocence is determined. Consequently, an extradition case is not one in which the
constitutional rights of the accused are necessarily available. Having once escaped the
jurisdiction of the requesting state, the reasonable prima facie presumption is that the
person would escape again if given the opportunity. Hence, if the judge is convinced
that a prima facie case exists, he immediately Issue a warrant for the arrest of the
potential extraditee and summons him or her to answer and to appear at scheduled
hearings on the petition. Potential extraditees are entitled to the rights to due process
and to fundamental fairness. Due process does not always call for a prior opportunity to
be heard. A subsequent opportunity is sufficient due to the flight risk involved. Indeed,
available during the hearings on the petition and the answer is the full chance to be
heard and to enjoy fundamental fairness that is compatible with the summary nature of
extradition.

After being taken into custody, potential extraditees may apply for bail. Since the
applicants have a history of absconding, they have the burden of showing that (a) there
is no flight risk and no danger to the community; and (b) there exist special,
humanitarian or compelling circumstances. In extradition cases, bail is not a matter of
right; it is subject to judicial discretion in the context of the peculiar facts of each case.