Showing posts with label human rights law case digest. Show all posts

Human Rights Law Case Digest: Kurodo v. Jandaloni (1949)

G.R. No. L-2662 March 26, 1949

Lessons Applicable: Generally accepted principles of international law

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:

Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines during a period covering 1943 and 1944 who is now charged before a military Commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the Armed forces of the Philippines with having unlawfully disregarded and failed "to discharge his duties as such command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and customs of war"
File a petition seeking to establish the illegality of Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines:

to enjoin and prohibit Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port from participating in the prosecution of his case; and - not attorneys authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines is a diminution of our personality as an independent state and their appointment as prosecutor are a violation of our Constitution for the reason that they are not qualified to practice law in the Philippines and not interested party in the case
to permanently prohibit respondents from proceeding with the case - Executive Order No. 68 is illegal on the ground that it violates not only the provision of our constitutional law but also our local laws to say nothing of the fact (that) the Philippines is not a signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare and therefore petitioners is charged of 'crimes' not based on law, national and international

ISSUE: W/N Executive Order No. 68 is valid

HELD: YES

President as Commander in Chief is fully empowered to consummate this unfinished aspect of war namely the trial and punishment of war criminal through the issuance and enforcement of Executive Order No. 68

Such rule and principles therefore form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them for our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rule and principle of international law as continued inn treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory.

It cannot be denied that the rules and regulation of the Hague and Geneva conventions form, part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principals of international law.

when the crimes charged against petitioner were allegedly committed the Philippines was under the sovereignty of United States and thus we were equally bound together with the United States and with Japan to the right and obligation contained in the treaties between the belligerent countries
the appointment of the 2 American attorneys is not violative of our nation sovereignty. It is only fair and proper that United States, which has submitted the vindication of crimes against her government and her people to a tribunal of our nation should be allowed representation in the trial of those very crimes

Human Rights Law Case Digest: Opposa v. Factoran (1993)

G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993

Lessons Applicable: right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology ,inter-generational responsibility, inter-generational justice

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:

Petitioners Minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents against original defendant Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., [Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)] which he holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minors and succeeding generations
petition to prevent the misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine rainforests and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth - granted timber license agreements ('TLA's') to various corporations to cut the aggregate area of 3.89 million hectares for commercial logging purposes thus, at the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about 200,000 hectares per annum or 25 hectares per hour, the Philippines will be bereft of forest resources after the end of this ensuing decade, if not earlier.
clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as the parens patriae
Philippine Environmental Policy which, in pertinent part, states that it is the policy of the State: (a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony with each other;(b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of Filipinos and;
(c) to ensure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conductive to a life of dignity and well-being. (P.D. 1151, 6 June 1977)
Constitutional policy of the State to:     a. effect "a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth" and "make full and efficient use of natural resources (sic)." (Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution);
    b. "protect the nation's marine wealth." (Section 2, ibid);
    c. "conserve and promote the nation's cultural heritage and resources (sic)" (Section 14, Article XIV, id.);
    d. "protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature." (Section 16, Article II, id.)
Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on 2 grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of Government - granted further ruling that the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental law of the land.
Special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 to set aside dismissal order

ISSUE:

1. whether or not the minors have locus standi - yes
2. W/N the TLA should be cancelled

HELD:Petition is granted

2. Yes. While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies (NOT Bill of Rights), it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter.

Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation-the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions.
As a matter of fact, these basic rights need NOT even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.
Explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
even before the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, specific statutes already paid special attention to the "environmental right" of the present and future generations [June 1977: P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy) and P.D. No. 1152 (Philippine Environment Code)]
Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve as the bases for policy formulation, and have defined the powers and functions of the DENR.

the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state

all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is not a contract, property or a property right protested by the due process clause of the Constitution.
A timber license is an instrument by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. A timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause; it is only a license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case
the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and general welfare
Equally fundamental with the private right is that of the public to regulate it in the common interest.
With respect to renewal, the holder is NOT entitled to it as a matter of right.

Human Rights Law Case Digest: Stonehill v. Diokno (1967)

G.R. No. L-19550 June 19, 1967

Lessons Applicable: Right against warrantless searches and seizures

Laws Applicable: bill of rights

FACTS:

In violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code, 42 warrants were issued against petitioners or the corporation where they are officers to search the persons above-named and/or the premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences, and to seize and take possession of their books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers) which are the subject of the offense.
Petitioners filed with the Supreme Court this original action for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injunction, and prayed that, pending final disposition of the present case, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued alleging the search warrants to be void since (1) they do not describe with particularity the documents, books and things to be seized; (2) cash money, not mentioned in the warrants, were actually seized; (3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed against them; (4) the searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner; and (5) the documents, papers and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts that issued the warrants, to be disposed of in accordance with law

ISSUE: W/N the seizure is valid

HELD: YES. warrants for the search of 3 residences null and void; searches and seizures made are illegal; that the writ of preliminary injunction issued

the documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants in question may be split into two (2) major groups, namely:

(a) those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations, and

have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that said corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of herein petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of the interest of each of them in said corporations, and whatever the offices they hold therein may be.
question of the lawfulness of a seizure can be raised only by one whose rights have been invaded. Certainly, such a seizure, if unlawful, could not affect the constitutional rights of defendants whose property had not been seized or the privacy of whose homes had not been disturbed

(b) those found and seized in the residences of petitioners herein.

2 points must be stressed in connection with this constitutional mandate, namely:

(1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said provision; and - not met
(2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. - not met

without reference to any determinate provision of said laws
the warrants authorized the search for and seizure of records pertaining to all business transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal.

To uphold the validity of the warrants in question would be to wipe out completely one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution, for it would place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims caprice or passion of peace officers.

Human Rights Law Case Digest: Mejoff v. Director of Prisons (1951)

G.R. No. L-4254 September 26, 1951

Lessons Applicable: characteristics of human rights, constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law,

Laws Applicable: Bill of Rights

FACTS:

Boris Mejoff, an alien of Russian descent who was brought to this country from Shanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese forces during the latter's regime in these Islands. (The petitioner's entry into the Philippines was not unlawful; he was brought by the armed and belligerent forces of a de facto government whose decrees were law furing the occupation.)
He was arrested on March 18, 1948 as a Japanese spy, by U. S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps. and later there was an order for his release.
But on April 5, 1948, the Board of Commissioners of Immigration declared that Mejoff had entered the Philippines illegally in 1944 and ordered that he be deported on the first available transportation to Russia.
He was transferred to Cebu Provincial Jail and then Bilibid Prison at Muntinlupa on October, 1948.
He then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the basis that too long a detention may justify the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus - denied
Over two years having elapsed since the decision aforesaid was promulgated, the Government has not found way and means of removing the petitioner out of the country, and none are in sight, although it should be said in justice to the deportation authorities, it was through no fault of theirs that no ship or country would take the petitioner.
This is his 2nd petition for writ of habeas corpus

ISSUE: W/N the writ of habeas corpus should be granted since he was detained longer than a reasonable time

HELD: YES. writ will issue commanding the respondents to release the petitioner from custody upon these terms: The petitioner shall be placed under the surveillance of the immigration authorities or their agents in such form and manner as may be deemed adequate to insure that he keep peace and be available when the Government is ready to deport him. The surveillance shall be reasonable and the question of reasonableness shall be submitted to this Court or to the Court of First Instance of Manila for decision in case of abuse. He shall also put up a bond for the above purpose in the amount of P5,000 with sufficient surety or sureties, which bond the Commissioner of Immigration is authorized to exact by section 40 of Commonwealth Act No. 613.

Aliens illegally staying in the Philippines have no right of asylum therein even if they are "stateless," which the petitioner claims to be.
The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and except for crimes committed against the laws of the land is not limited to Philippine citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality.

Moreover, by its Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 3) the Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of Nation." And in a resolution entitled "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations of which the Philippines is a member, at its plenary meeting on December 10, 1948, the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to all human beings were proclaimed. It was there resolved that "All human beings are born free and equal in degree and rights" (Art. 1); that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationality or social origin, property, birth, or other status" (Art. 2): that "Every one has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution or by law" (Art. 8); that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile" (Art. 9); etc.

petitioner's unduly prolonged detention would be unwarranted by law and the Constitution, if the only purpose of the detention be to eliminate a danger that is by no means actual, present, or uncontrollable
Imprisonment to protect society from predicted but unconsummated offenses is so unprecedented in this country and so fraught with danger of excesses and injustice that I am loath to resort it, even as a discretionary judicial technique to supplement conviction of such offenses as those of which defendants stand convicted.
If that case is not comparable with ours on the issues presented, its underlying principle is of universal application.
As already noted, not only are there no charges pending against the petitioner, but the prospects of bringing any against him are slim and remote.

Human Rights Law Case Digest: Mejoff v. Director of Prisons (1949)

G.R. No. L-2855 July 30, 1949

Lessons Applicable: characteristics of human rights, constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law,

Laws Applicable: Bill of Rights

FACTS:

Boris Mejoff, an alien of Russian descent who was brought to this country from Shanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese forces during the latter's regime in these Islands.
He was arrested on March 18, 1948 as a Japanese spy, by U. S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps. and later there was an order for his release.
But on April 5, 1948, the Board of Commissioners of Immigration declared that Mejoff had entered the Philippines illegally in 1944 and ordered that he be deported on the first available transportation to Russia.
He was transferred to Cebu Provincial Jail and then Bilibid Prison at Muntinlupa on October, 1948.
He then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the basis that too long a detention may justify the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus

ISSUE: W/N the writ of habeas corpus should be granted since he was detained longer than a reasonable time

HELD: NO. Denied.

The meaning of "reasonable time" depends upon the circumstances, specially the difficulties of obtaining a passport, the availability of transportation, the diplomatic arrangements concerned and the efforts displayed to send the deportee away.

Considering that this Government desires to expel the alien, and does not relish keeping him at the people's expense, we must presume it is making efforts to carry out the decree of exclusion by the highest officer of the land. On top of this presumption assurances were made during the oral argument that the Government is really trying to expedite the expulsion of this petitioner.

On the other hand, the record fails to show how long he has been under confinement since the last time he was apprehended. Neither does he indicate neglected opportunities to send him abroad. And unless it is shown that the deportee is being indefinitely imprisoned under the pretense of awaiting a chance for deportation or unless the Government admits that it cannot deport him or unless the detainee is being held for too long a period our courts will not interfere.
Nevertheless, supposing such precedents apply in this jurisdiction, still we have no sufficient data fairly to fix a definite deadline.

PERFECTO, J., dissenting: The constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law has been intended to protect all inhabitants or residents who may happen to be under the shadows of Philippine flag.

Human Rights Law Case Digest: Philippine Blooming Mills Employment Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co. (1973)

G.R. No. L-31195 June 5, 1973

Lessons Applicable:   Nature and Definition of Human Rights, Human Right is superior to property rights, Social justice, jurisdiction over violation of constitutional right
Laws Applicable: Bill of Rights on rights of free expression, rights of free assembly and rights of petition

FACTS:
•    March 2, 1969: Philippine Blooming Mills discovered that Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a mass demonstration as a valid exercise of their constitutional right of freedom expression in general and of their right of assembly and petition for redress of grievances in particular before appropriate governmental agency, the Chief Executive, alleged abuses of the police officers of the municipality of Pasig at Malacañang on March 4, 1969 to be participated in by the workers in the first, second and third shifts (6am-2pm, 7am-4pm. and 8am-5pm respectively)
•    March 3, 1969: Philippine Blooming Mills held 2 meetings in the morning and afternoon where PBMEO confirmed the demonstration which has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no quarrel or dispute with Management. That Management, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon, Company personnel manager, informed PBMEO that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union guaranteed by the Constitution but emphasized, however, that any demonstration for that matter should not unduly prejudice the normal operation thus whoever fails to report for work the following morning shall be dismissed for violation of the existing CBA Article XXIV: NO LOCKOUT — NO STRIKE amounting to an illegal strike
•    March 3, 1969 9:50 am: Wilfredo Ariston, adviser of PBMEO sent a cablegram to the Company: REITERATING REQUEST EXCUSE DAY SHIFT EMPLOYEES JOINING DEMONSTRATION MARCH 4, 1969
•    The Company filed for violation of the CBA. PBMEO answered that there is no violation since they gave prior notice. Moreover, it was not a mass demonstration for strike against the company.
•    Judge Joaquin M. Salvador: PBMEO guilty of bargaining in bad faith and PBMEO officers directly responsible for ULP losing their status as employees
•    September 29, 1969: PBMEO motion for reconsideration – dismissed since 2 days late
ISSUE:
1.    W/N to regard the demonstration against police officers, not against the employer, as evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and hence a violation of the collective bargaining agreement and a cause for the dismissal from employment of the demonstrating employees, stretches unduly the compass of the collective bargaining agreement, is an inhibition of the rights of free expression, free assembly and petition
HELD: YES. Set aside as null and void the orders of CFI and reinstate the petitioners.
•    In a democracy, the preservation and enhancement of the dignity and worth of the human personality is the central core as well as the cardinal article of faith of our civilization. The inviolable character of man as an individual must be "protected to the largest possible extent in his thoughts and in his beliefs as the citadel of his person
•    The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security "against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles.
•    The freedoms of expression and of assembly as well as the right to petition are included among the immunities reserved by the sovereign people
•    The rights of free expression, free assembly and petition, are not only civil rights but also political rights essential to man's enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and to his full and complete fulfillment. Thru these freedoms the citizens can participate not merely in the periodic establishment of the government through their suffrage but also in the administration of public affairs as well as in the discipline of abusive public officers. The citizen is accorded these rights so that he can appeal to the appropriate governmental officers or agencies for redress and protection as well as for the imposition of the lawful sanctions on erring public officers and employees.
•    While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized.
o    Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible.
o    a constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent
o    Rationale: Material loss can be repaired or adequately compensated. The debasement of the human being broken in morale and brutalized in spirit-can never be fully evaluated in monetary terms. The wounds fester and the scars remain to humiliate him to his dying day, even as he cries in anguish for retribution, denial of which is like rubbing salt on bruised tissues.
o    injunction would be trenching upon the freedom expression of the workers, even if it legally appears to be illegal picketing or strike
•    The pretension of their employer that it would suffer loss or damage by reason of the absence of its employees from 6 o'clock in the morning to 2 o'clock in the afternoon, is a plea for the preservation merely of their property rights.
o    There was a lack of human understanding or compassion on the part of the firm in rejecting the request of the Union for excuse from work for the day shifts in order to carry out its mass demonstration. And to regard as a ground for dismissal the mass demonstration held against the Pasig police, not against the company, is gross vindictiveness on the part of the employer, which is as unchristian as it is unconstitutional.
o    The most that could happen to them was to lose a day's wage by reason of their absence from work on the day of the demonstration. One day's pay means much to a laborer, more especially if he has a family to support. Yet, they were willing to forego their one-day salary hoping that their demonstration would bring about the desired relief from police abuses. But management was adamant in refusing to recognize the superior legitimacy of their right of free speech, free assembly and the right to petition for redress.
o    the dismissal for proceeding with the demonstration and consequently being absent from work, constitutes a denial of social justice likewise assured by the fundamental law to these lowly employees. Section 5 of Article II of the Constitution imposes upon the State "the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all of the people," which guarantee is emphasized by the other directive in Section 6 of Article XIV of the Constitution that "the State shall afford protection to labor ...". Under the Industrial Peace Act, the Court of Industrial Relations is enjoined to effect the policy of the law "to eliminate the causes of industrial unrest by encouraging and protecting the exercise by employees of their right to self-organization for the purpose of collective bargaining and for the promotion of their moral, social and economic well-being."
•    The respondent company is the one guilty of unfair labor practice defined in Section 4(a-1) in relation to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 875, otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8 guarantees to the employees the right "to engage in concert activities for ... mutual aid or protection"; while Section 4(a-1) regards as an unfair labor practice for an employer interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise their rights guaranteed in Section Three."
•    violation of a constitutional right divests the court of jurisdiction. Relief from a criminal conviction secured at the sacrifice of constitutional liberties, may be obtained through habeas corpus proceedings even long after the finality of the judgment. There is no time limit to the exercise of the freedoms. The right to enjoy them is not exhausted by the delivery of one speech, the printing of one article or the staging of one demonstration. It is a continuing immunity to be invoked and exercised when exigent and expedient whenever there are errors to be rectified, abuses to be denounced, inhumanities to be condemned. Otherwise these guarantees in the Bill of Rights would be vitiated by rule on procedure prescribing the period for appeal. The battle then would be reduced to a race for time. And in such a contest between an employer and its laborer, the latter eventually loses because he cannot employ the best an dedicated counsel who can defend his interest with the required diligence and zeal, bereft as he is of the financial resources with which to pay for competent legal services
•    enforcement of the basic human freedoms sheltered no less by the organic law, is a most compelling reason to deny application of a Court of Industrial Relations rule which impinges on such human rights. It is an accepted principle that the Supreme Court has the inherent power to "suspend its own rules or to except a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice require."

Human Rights Law PILA Case Digest: Government of Hong Kong v. Hon. Olalia Jr. (2007)

G.R. No. 153675 April 19, 2007

Lessons Applicable: generally accepted international law, due process, bill of rights, extradition

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:

June 20, 1997: Republic of the Philippines and the then British Crown Colony of Hong Kong effect an "Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons."
July 1, 1997: Hong Kong reverted back to the People’s Republic of China and became the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Juan Antonio Muñoz charged before the Hong Kong Court of 3 counts in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and 7 counts of conspiracy to defraud, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong
August 23, 1997 and October 25, 1999: warrants of arrest were issued against him
September 13, 1999: DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for the provisional arrest - granted and NBI arrested him
Muñoz' Petition for Certiorari w/ the CA questioning the legality of his arrest - order of arrest void
November 22, 1999: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for the extradition
DOJ Petition for Certiorari (became final April 10, 2001) - granted; order of arrest valid
October 8, 2001: Judge Bernardo, Jr. denied bail(then judge inhibited himself)
October 30, 2001: Judge Olalia on motion for reconsideration granted bail
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to nullify:

1. December 20, 2001 Order allowing Juan Antonio Muñoz to post bail; and - nothing in the Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential extraditee has a right to bail, the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings
2. April 10, 2002 Order denying the motion to vacate December 20, 2001 Order

ISSUE: W/N there is a right to bail in extradition proceedings

HELD: YES. DISMISS the petition. REMANDED to the trial court determine whether private respondent is entitled to bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence”

Human Rights Law

It cannot be taken to mean that the right is available even in extradition proceedings that are not criminal in nature.
The modern trend in public international law is the primacy placed on the worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human rights. While not a treaty, the principles contained in the said Declaration are now recognized as customarily binding upon the members of the international community.
Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to every person under detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty under Section II, Article II of our Constitution. These remedies include the right to be admitted to bail.
Exercise of the State’s power to deprive an individual of his liberty is not necessarily limited to criminal proceedings. Respondents in administrative proceedings, such as deportation and quarantine, have likewise been detained.
Philippine jurisprudence has not limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal proceedings only.

the Court relied in Mejoff case upon the Universal declaration of Human Rights in sustaining the detainee’s right to bail
If bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no justification why it should not also be allowed in extradition cases. Likewise, considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition cases. After all, both are administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue.

The right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the 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.

Public International Law

An extradition proceeding is not by its nature criminal, for it is not punishment for a crime, even though such punishment may follow extradition. It is sui generis, tracing its existence wholly to treaty obligations between different nations. It is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the potential extraditee. Nor is it a full-blown civil action, but one that is merely administrative in character. Its object is to prevent the escape of a person accused or convicted of a crime and to secure his return to the state from which he fled, for the purpose of trial or punishment. But while extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it is characterized by the following:

1) it entails a deprivation of liberty on the part of the potential extraditee and
2) the means employed to attain the purpose of extradition is also "the machinery of criminal law

This is shown by Section 6 of P.D. No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) which mandates the "immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused" if such "will best serve the interest of justice." We further note that Section 20 allows the requesting state "in case of urgency" to ask for the "provisional arrest of the accused, pending receipt of the request for extradition;" and that release from provisional arrest "shall not prejudice re-arrest and extradition of the accused if a request for extradition is received subsequently."
Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all earmarks of a criminal process. A potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to transfer to the demanding state following the proceedings. "Temporary detention" may be a necessary step in the process of extradition, but the length of time of the detention should be reasonable.
By any standard, detention for over 2 years without having been convicted of any crime is a serious deprivation of his fundamental right to liberty which prompted the extradition court to grant him bail. While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extraditee, however, there is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right to due process under the Constitution.
In criminal proceedings, the standard of due process is premised on the presumption of innocence of the accused. While in an extradition proceeding, the assumption is that the extraditee is a fugitive from justice, thus, he bears the onus probandi of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and should be granted bail. The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court.
It does not necessarily mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations under the time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda that the Philippines should diminish a potential extraditee’s rights to life, liberty, and due process. More so, where these rights are guaranteed, not only by our Constitution, but also by international conventions, to which the Philippines is a party. We should not deprive an extraditee of his right to apply for bail, provided that a certain standard for the grant is satisfactorily met.